Skip to main content

Full text of "The four Gospels : translated from the Greek, with preliminary dissertations, and notes critical and explanatory ... with the author's last corrections .."

See other formats 


'^i^ 


•■JIW 


^- 


I^SSO 


'^«. 


PRINCETON,  N.   J.  /| 

Phrt  of  the  ffl 

ADDISON  .^LEXANOER'  LIBRARY,  t 

wliich  wq,s  pfcscnted  by  l\ 

Messrs.  R.  L.  an»  A.  Stl-abt.  Vf 
» 


^ 


Casf\ 


Division, 

Seclion . 
No,. 


tHB 


FOUR  GOSPELS, 


TRANSLATED    FROM    THE    GREEK. 


WITH 


PRELIMINARY   DISSERTATIONS, 


AND 


NOTES  CRITICAL  AND  EXPLANATORY. 


BY  GEORGE  CAMPBELL,  D.D.  F.R.S.  EDINBURGH. 

Principal  of  the  Marischnl  College,  Aberdeen. 


IN    rOUR    VOLUMES. 

VOL.  n. 

WITH  THE  AUTHOR'S  LAST  CORRECTIONS. 
MONH  GYTEON  TH  AAHGEIA. 


-<  -r  BOSTON : 

PUBLISHED   BY    TIMOTHY    BEDLINGTON"    AND    CHARLES    EWER. 
TreadwelPs  Power  Press. — T.  H.  Carter,  Printer. 

1821 


CONTENTS 


OF 


THE   SECOND  VOLUME. 


'   DISSERTATION  VIII. 

PAGE 

Observations  on  the  Manner  of  rendering  some 
Words  to  which  there  are  not  any  that  per- 
fectly correspond  in  modern  Languages.  1 

Part  I.  Weights,  Measures,  and  Coins 2 

Part  II.  Rites,  Festivals,  and  Sects 21 

Part  III.  Dress,  Judicatories,  and  Offices     ....  27 


DISSERTATION  IX. 

Inquiry  whether  certain  JSTames  which  have 
been  adopted  into  most  Translations  of 
Scripture  in  the  West,  coincide  in  Meaning 
with  the  original  Terms  from  ivhich  they 
are  derived,  and  of  which  they  are  used  as 
the  Version 58 

Part  I.  Of  Mystery .60 

Part  II.  Of  Blasphemy       76 

Part  III.  Of  Schism       104 

Part  IV.  Of  Heresy 115 


ii  CONTENTS. 

DISSERTATION  X.   . 

PAGE 

The  chief  Things  to  be  attended  to  in  trans- 
lating.— »d  comparative  View  of  the  oppo- 
site Methods  taken  by  Translators  of  Holy 
Writ. 

Part  I.  The  things  to  be  attended  to  in  translating,  142 

Part  II.  Strictures  on  Arias  Montanus      ....  146 

Part  III.  Strictures  on  the  Vulgate 164 

Part  IV.  Strictures  on  Castalio        ......  180 

Part  V.  Strictures  on  Beza        206 

DISSERTATION  XI. 

Of  the  Regard  which,  in  translating  Scripture 
into  English,  is  due  to  the  Practice  of  for- 
mer Translators,  particularly  of  the  Au- 
thors of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  of  the 
common  English    Translation. 

Part  I.  The  Regard  due  to  the  Vulgate       .     .     .     24-1 
Part  II.  The  Regard  due  to  the  English  Transla- 

Uon 306 

DISSERTATION  XII. 

An  Account  of  what  is  attempted  in  the  Trans- 
lation of  the  Gospels,  and  in  the  JVotes  here 
offered  to  the  Public. 

Part  I.  The  essential  Qualities  of  the  Version      .  330 
Part  II.  The  Readings  of  the  Original  here  fol- 
lowed     . 392 

Part  III.  The  Dialect  employed 421 

Part  IV.  The  outward  Form  of  the  Version     .     .  441 

Part  V.  The  Notes      . .  463 


^vtiivxinuvVi  ^iuutvtution^ 


DISSERTATION  THE  EIGHTH. 

Observations  on  the  Manner  of  rendering  some  Words,  to 
which  there  are  not  any  that  perfectly  correspond  in  Modem 
Languages* 

It  was  observed  in  a  former  Dissertation  ^  that 
there  are  words  in  the  language  of  every  people, 
which  are  not  capable  of  being  translated  into  that 
of  any  other  people  who  have  not  a  perfect  con- 
formity with  them  in  those  customs  or  sentiments 
which  have  given  rise  to  those  words.  The  terms 
comprehended  under  this  remark,  may  be  dis- 
tributed into  three  classes.  The  first  is,  of 
weights,  measures,  and  coins  :  the  second  of 
rites,  sects,  and  festivals  :  the  third  of  dress,  ju- 
dicatories, and  offices. 

»  Diss.  II.  P.  I.  §  5. 


PRELIMINARY  [d.  viir. 


PART  I. 


WEIGHTS,    BIEASURES,    AND    COINS. 

As  to  the  first  class,  it  is  evident  that  there  is 
nothing,  wherein  nations,  especially  such  as  are 
distant  from  one  another  in  time  and  place,  more 
frequently  differ,  than  in  the  measures  and  coins, 
which  law  or  custom  has  established  among:  them. 

CD 

Under  coins  I  shall  here  include  Aveights  ;  be- 
cause it  was  chiefly  by  weight  that  money  was 
anciently  distinguished.  As  commonly,  in  every 
country,  the  people  have  names  only  for  their 
own,  it  is  often  necessary,  in  the  translation  of 
ancient  and  foreign  books,  to  adopt  their  peculiar 
names,  and  by  mentioning  in  the  margin  the 
equivalent  in  our  own  money,  measures,  and 
weights,  to  supply  the  reader  with  the  proper  in- 
formation. This  method  has  accordingly  been, 
often,  though  not  always,  taken  by  the  translators 
of  holy  writ.  Into  the  common  version  of  the 
Old  Testament,  several  Oriental,  and  other 
foreign,  names,  have  been  admitted,  which  are 
explained  in  the  margin.  Hence  we  have  shekel, 
ephah,  bath,  homer,  cor,  and  some  others.  This, 
however  (for  what  reason  I  know  not,)  has  not 
been  attempted  in  the  New  Testament.     Instead 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  3 

of  it,  one  or  other  of  these  two  methods, has  been 
taken  :  either  some  name  of  our  own,  supposed  to 
be  equivalent,  or  at  least  not  strictly  confined,  by 
use,  to  a  precise  meaning,  is  adopted,  such  as  pound, 
penny,  farthifig,  bushel,  firkin ;  or  (which  is  the 
only  other  method  ever  used  by  our  translators) 
some  general  expression  is  employed  ;  as,  a  piece 
of  money,  a  piece  of  silver,  tribute  money,  a  meas- 
2ire,  and  the  like.  These  are  three  ways,  every 
one  of  which  has  some  advantages,  and  some  dis- 
advantages, and  is,  in  some  cases,  the  most  eligible, 
and  not  in  others. 

One  Monsieur  le  Cene,  a  French  writer,  who, 
in  the  end  of  the  last  century,  wrote  what  he 
called,  a  Project  for  a  new  Translation  of  the 
Bible  into  French,  has  recommended  a  fourth 
method,  which  is,  to  give  in  the  version  the  exact 
value  expressed  in  the  money,  or  measures,  of 
the  country  into  whose  language  the  version  is 
made.  The  anonymous  author  of  an  essay,  in  Eng- 
lish, for  a  new  translation,  has  adopted  this  idea ; 
or  rather,  without  naming  Le  Cene,  has  turned 
into  English,  and  transferred  to  our  use,  all  those 
remarks  of  the  Frenchman,  which  he  accounted 
applicable  to  the  English  version.  This  fourth 
method,  though  much  approved  by  some,  on  ac- 
count of  its  supposed  perspicuity,  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, the  worst  of  them  all,  nor  do  I  know  a 
single  instance  wherein  I  could  say  that  it  ought 
to  be  adopted  ^. 

^  Till  I  read  it  lately  in  Dr.  Geddes'  Prospectus,  I  did  not 
know  that  Le  Cene  had  pubUshed  a  version   of  the  Scriptures. 


4  PRELIMINARY  [d.  vin. 

§  2.  But,  before  I  enter  on  the  discussion  of 
these  methods,  it  is  proper  here  tq  premise  that, 
as  to  measures,  the  inquiry  may  well  be  confined 
to  those  called  measures  of  capacity.  The  small- 
er length  measures  have  originally,  in  every 
country,  been  borrowed  from  some  of  the  propor- 
tions which  take  place  in  the  human  body.  Hence 
inch^  hundbreadth,  span,  foot,  cubit.  The  larger 
measures,  pace,  furlong,  mile,  are  but  multiples 
of  the  less.  Now,  as  there  is  not  an  exact  uni- 
formity of  measure  in  the  parts  of  individuals,  it 
would  naturally  follow,  that  different  nations 
would  establish,  for  themselves,  standard  meas- 
ures, not  much  different  from  those  of  others,  nor 
yet  entirely  the  same.  And  this  is  what,  in  such 
measures,  has  actually  happened.  When  any  of 
them,  therefore,  is  mentioned,  we  know  the  meas- 
ure nearly,  but  cannot  know  it  accurately,  till  we 
are  informed  of  what  nation  it  is  the  inch,  span, 
foot,  cubit,  &c.  The  names  have,  by  use,  ac- 
quired a  latitude  and  a  currency  in  these  different 

The  attentive  reader  will  perceive  that  the  criticisms  which 
follow,  in  relation  to  him,  do  not  refer  to  that  translation, 
which  I  never  saw,  but  solely  to  his  plan.  If  his  version  be 
conformable  to  his  own  rules,  it  is  certainly  a  curiosity  of  its 
kind.  But  that  cannot  be ;  otherwise  the  learned  Doctor, 
thouofh  not  profuse  in  its  praise,  would  not,  on  some  points, 
have  spoken  so  favourably  as  he  has  done.  Could  he  have 
said,  for  instance,  that  he  is  very  seldom  biassed  by  party 
prejudices  ?  If  Le  Cene  was  faultless  on  this  article,  much 
may  be  said  to  exculpate  Beza.  Their  parties  were  dif- 
ferent, but  their  error  was  the  same.  See  Diss.  X.  P.  V. 
§13. 


p.  t.]  DISSERTATIONS.  5 

applications.  As  to  superficial^  measure,  we  know 
it  is  reckoned  no  otherwise  than  by  the  square 
of  the  long  measure.  Whereas,  the  cubical  form, 
not  answering  so  well  in  practice  to  the  mensura- 
tion of  solids,  the  standards  for  them  have  gener- 
ally been  fixed,  without  any  regard  to  measures 
of  length  or  surface.  It  is  with  these  alone  there- 
fore that  we  are  here  concerned. 

§  3.  Now,  the  best  way  of  determining  our 
choice  properly,  among  the  different  methods 
of  translating  above  mentioned,  is  by  attending 
to  the  scope  of  the  passages  wherein  the  mention 
of  money  and  measures  is  introduced.  First, 
then,  it  sometimes  happens,  that  accuracy,  in  re- 
gard to  the  value  of  these,  is  of  importance  to 
the  sense.  Secondly,  it  sometimes  happens,  that 
the  value  of  the  coin,  or  the  capacity  of  the  meas- 
ure, is  of  no  consequence  to  the  import  of  the 
passage.  Thirdly,  it  happens  also,  sometimes, 
that  though  the  real  value  of  the  coin,  or  the  ca- 
pacit}'  of  the  measure,  does  not  affect  the  sense 
of  the  passage,  the  comparative  value  of  the  dif- 
ferent articles  mentioned,  is  of  some  moment  for 
the  better  understanding  of  what  is  said.  Let  us 
consider  what  methods  suit  best  the  several  cases 
now  mentioned. 

§  4.  First,  I  observed  that  accuracy,  in  regard 
to  the  value  of  the  measures  or  coins  mentioned, 
is  sometimes  of  importance  to  the  sense.  When 
this  is  the  case,  and  when  we  have  no  word  ex- 

VOL.    II.  1 


6  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viiii 

actly  corresponding  in  import  to  the  original 
term,  that  term  ought  to  be  retained  in  the  ver- 
sion, and  explained  in  the  margin,  according  to 
the  first  method  taken  notice  of.  An  instance, 
where  the  knowledge  both  of  the  capacity  of  the 
measure  and  of  the  value  of  the  coin,  are  essential 
to  the  sense,  we  have,  in  that  public  cry,  Xoivi^ 
aiTov  hjvagiov  ^,  which  our  translators  render,  a 
measure  of  wheat  for  a  penny.  It  is  evidently  the 
intention  of  the  writer  to  inform  us  of  the  rate  of 
this  necessary  article,  as  a  characteristic  of  the 
time  whereof  he  is  speaking.  But  our  version 
not  only  gives  no  information  on  this  head,  but 
has  not  even  the  appearance  of  giving  any,  which 
the  word  chcenix  would  have  had,  even  to  those 
who  did  not  understand  it.  But  to  say  a  measure, 
without  saying  what  measure,  is  to  say  just  noth- 
ing at  all.  The  word  penny,  here,  is  also  excep- 
tionable, being  used  indefinitely,  insomuch  that 
the  amount  of  the  declaration  is,  a  certain  quantity 
of  wheat  for  a  certain  quantity  of  money.  This 
suggests  no  idea  of  either  dearth  or  plenty  ;  and 
can  be  characteristical  of  no  time,  as  it  holds 
equally  of  every  time.  Tn  this  case,  the  original 
term,  notwithstanding  its  harshness,  ought  to  be 
retained  in  the  text,  and  explained  in  the  margin. 
Again,  it  was,  doubtless,  the  intention  of  the  sacred 
penman,  to  acquaint  us  at  how  low  a  price  our 
Saviour  was  sold  by  his  treacherous  disciple,  when 
he  informs  us  ^  that  the  chief  priests  agreed  to  give 

'  Rev.  vi.  6.  ■*  Matth.  xxvi.  15. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  7 

Judas  rgiaxovra  agyvgia.  In  like  manner,  when 
the  Evangelist  mentioned  ^  the  indignant  obser- 
vation of  Judas,  that  the  ointment,  wherewith  our 
Lord's  feet  were  anointed,  might  have  been  sold 
for  more  than  Tgiaxoaiav  SijvagLav,  it  was,  doubt- 
less, his  view  to  acquaint  us  with  the  value  of  the 
gift.  Once  more,  when  Philip  remarked  to  our 
Lord,  who  had  proposed  to  feed  the  multitude  in 
the  desert  ^,  Staxoaiav  Sr^vagtav  agxoi,  two  hundred 
pennyworth  of  bread,  as  it  runs  in  the  common  ver- 
sion, is  not  sufficient  for  them,  that  every  one  of  them 
may  take  a  little,  it  was  the  design  of  the  histo- 
rian to  supply  us  with  a  kind  of  criterion  for 
computing  the  number  of  the  people  present. 
But  this  could  be  no  criterion,  unless  we  knew 
the  value  of  the  dijvagiov. 

§  5.   '  But,'  say  those  modern    correctors,  *  in 

*  the  examples  above  mentioned,  when  the  know- 

*  ledge  of  the  value  of  the  coin,  and  the  capacity 

*  of  the  measure,  is  of  importance  to  the  sense, 

*  no   method   can   be   equal,   in    point  of  perspi- 
'  cuity,  to  that  recommended  by  us,  whereby  both 

*  are  reduced  to  an  equivalent,  in  the  moneys  and 

*  measures  of  the  country.  Thus,  the  first  pas- 
'  sage  quoted  would  be  rendered,  j1  measure  of 
'  wheat,  capable  of  supporting  a  man  for  one  day,"* 
for  thus  Le  Cene  proposes  to  translate  ^oivi^, 
''for  sevenpence  halfpenny.^  '  The  second.  The 
'  chief  priests  covenanted  with  Judas  for  three 
'  pounds  fifteen    shillings    sterling.      The    third, 

*  John,  xii.  6.  *  John,  vi.  7. 


8  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

*  Why  was  not  this  ointment  sold  for  nine  pounds 
'  seven  shillings  and  sixpence  ?  And  the  fourth, 
'  Six  pounds  Jive  shillings    would  not  purchase 

*  bread  sufficient.'' 

The  exceptions  against  this  method  are  many. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  mere  comment,  and  no 
translation.  Considered  as  a  comment,  it  may  be 
good ;  but  that  must  be  egregiously  wrong  as  a 
version,  which  represents  an  author  as  speaking 
of  what  he  knew  nothing  about,  nay,  of  what  had 
no  existence  in  his  time.  And  such,  surely,  is  the 
case  with  our  steiling  money,  which  an  interpre- 
tation of  this  sort  would  represent  as  the  current 
coin  of  Judea  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour.  Noth- 
ing ought  to  be  introduced  by  the  translator,  from 
which  the  English  reader  may  fairly  deduce  a 
false  conclusion,  in  regard  to  the  manners  and 
customs  of  the  time.  Besides,  as  the  comparative 
value  of  their  money  and  measures  with  ours  is 
not  founded  on  the  clearest  evidence,  is  it  proper 
to  give  a  questionable  point  the  sanction,  as  it 
were,  of  inspiration  ?  Add  to  all  this,  that  no 
method  can  be  devised,  which  would,  more  effect- 
ually than  this,  destroy  the  native  simplicity  and 
energy  of  the  expression.  What  is  expressed  in 
round  numbers,  in  the  original,  is,  with  an  absurd 
minuteness,  reduced  to  fractions  in  the  version. 
Nothing  can  be  more  natural  than  the  expression, 
Ttvo  hundred  denarii  would  not  purchase  bread 
enough  to  afford  every  one  of  them  a  little.  This 
is  spoken  like  one  who  makes  a  shrewd  guess 
from  what  he   sees.     Whereas,  nothing  can  be 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  9 

more  unnatural  than,  in  such  a  case,  to  descend  to 
fractional  parts,  and  say,  Six  pounds  Jive  shillings 
would  not  purchase.  This  is  what  nobody  would 
have  said,  that  had  not  previously  made  the  com- 
putation. Just  so,  the  round  sum  of  three  hundred 
denarii  might  very  naturally  be  conjectured,  by 
one  present,  to  be  about  the  value  of  the  oint- 
ment. But,  for  one  to  go  so  nearly  to  work  as  to 
say,  J\'ine  pounds  seven  shillings  and  sixpence 
might  have  been  gotten  for  this  liquor,  would  di- 
rectly suggest  to  the  hearers,  that  he  had  weighed 
it,  and  computed  its  value  at  so  much  a  pound. 
There  is  this  additional  absurdity  in  the  last  ex- 
ample, that  it  is  said,  anava,  more  than :  conse- 
quently, it  is  mentioned,  not  as  the  exact  account, 
but  as  a  plausible  conjecture,  rather  under  than 
above  the  price.  But  does  any  body,  in  conjec- 
tures of  this  kind,  acknowledged  to  be  conjectures, 
descend  to  fractional  parts  '^ 

§  6.  Now,  if  this  method  would  succeed  so  ill, 
in  the  first  of  the  three  cases  mentioned,  it  will 
be  found  to  answer  still  worse  in  the  other  two, 
where  little  depends  on  the  knowledge  of  the 
value.  In  the  second,  I  may  say,  nothing  depends 
on  it.  Now,  there  are  several  passages,  wherein 
coins  and  measures  are  mentioned,  in  which  the 
value  of  the  coin,  or  the  capacity  of  the  measure, 
is  of  no  conceivable  consequence  to  the  import  of 
the  passage.  In  this  case,  either  the  second  or 
the  third  method,  above  specified,  is  preferable  to 
the  introduction  of  a  foreign  term,  not  used  in 
other  places  of  the  version,  and  noway  necessary 


10  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

to  the  sense.  But  let  it  be  observed  of  the  sec- 
ond method,  that  I  am  never  for  using  such  names 
of  coins  and  measures  as  are  peculiarly  modern,  of 
European,  and  not  applied  to  the  money  and 
measures  of  ancient  and  Oriental  countries  :  for 
such  terms  always  suggest  the  notion  of  a  coinci- 
dence with  us,  in  things  wherein  there  was  actual- 
ly no  coincidence. 

We  read  in  the  common  version*^,  JV*either  do 
men  light  a  candle  and  put  it  under  a  bushel,  'vno 
Tov  fioSiov,  but  on  a  candlestick.  Every  person 
must  be  sensible,  that  the  size  of  the  measure 
is  of  no  consequence  here  to  the  sense  :  the 
intention  being  solely  to  signify,  that  a  light 
is  brought,  not  to  be  covered  up,  but  to  be  placed 
where  it  may  be  of  use  in  lighting  the  household. 
The  general  term  corn-measure,  perfectly  answers 
the  author's  purpose  in  this  place ;  and  as  no- 
where, but  in  the  expression  of  this  very  senti- 
ment, does  the  word  fioSiog  occur  in  the  Gospels, 
there  is  no  reason  for  adopting  it.  The  term 
bushel  serves  well  enough  for  conveying  the  im- 
port of  the  sentiment ;  but  as  it  indirectly  sug- 
gests an  untruth,  namely,  the  ancient  use  of  that 
measure  in  Judea,  it  is  evidently  improper.  For 
an  example  in  money,  our  Lord  says,  when  the 
Pharisees  interrogated  him  about  the  lawfulness 
of  paying  the  tribute  imposed  by  their  con- 
querors^, EniBH^axe  fiat  drivagiov,  rendered  in  the 
common  version,  shotv  me  a  penny,  the  Sequel 
evinces  that  it  was  of  no  importance  what  the 

''  Matth.  V.  15.  8  Luke,  xx.  24. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  11 

value  of  the  money  was  ;  the  argument  is  affect- 
ed solely  by  the  figure  and  inscription  on  it.  And 
if,  in  no  other  place  of  the  Gospels,  the  value  of 
that  coin  had  affected  the  sense  more  than  it  does 
here,  it  might  have  been  rendered  by  the  general 
phrase  piece  of  money.  Now  let  us  see  how  Le 
Cene^s  method  does  with  those  two  examples. 
In  the  first  he  would  sa}^  JVeither  do  men  light 
a  candle  to  put  it  under  a  measure  which  contains 
about  a  pint  less  than  a  peck.  Or,  according  to 
the  manner  which  he  sometimes  adopts,  contain- 
ing such  a  precise  number  of  eggs  (I  do  not  re- 
collect how  many  ;)  would  not  this  particularity 
in  fixing  the  capacity  of  the  measure,  but  too 
manifestly  convey  the  insinuation  that  there  would 
be  nothing  strange  or  improper  in  men's  putting 
a  lighted  candle  under  any  other  measure  larger 
or  smaller  than  that  whereof  the  capacity  is,  as 
a  matter  of  principal  moment,  so  nicely  ascertain- 
ed ?  A  strange  way  this  of  rendering  Scripture 
perspicuous  ! 

Nor  does  it  answer  better  in  coins  than  in 
measures.  When  our  Lord  said,  ETtiSei^ars  fioc 
Stfvagtov,  the  very  words  imply  that  it  was  a 
single  piece  he  wanted  to  see  ;  and  what  follows 
supplies  us  with  the  reason.  But  how  does  this 
suit  Le  Cene^s  mode  of  reduction  ?  Show  me 
sevenpence  halfpenny.  Have  we  any  such  piece  .'* 
The  very  demand  must,  to  an  English  reader, 
appear  capricious,  and  the  money  asked  could 
not  be  presented  otherwise  than  in  different 
pieces,  if  not  in  different  kinds.  It  is  added, 
Whose  image  and  superscription  hath  it  ?    Is  this 


12  PRELIMINARY  [d.  vin. 

a  question  which  any  man  would  put,  Whose 
image  and  superscription  hath  sevenpence  half- 
penny ?      *•  But  there  may   have   been   formerly 

*  sevenpence  halfpenny  pieces^  though  we  have  none 

*  now.'  Be  it  so.  Still,  as  it  is  unsuitable  to  have 
the  head  and  inscription  of  a  Roman  emperor  on 
what  must,  from  the  denomination,  be  understood 
to  be  British  coin,  they  ought,  for  the  sake  of  con- 
sistency, and  for  making  the  transformation  of  the 
money  complete,  to  render  the  reply  to  the  afore- 
said question,  George^s  instead  of  Cesafs.  If 
this  be  not  translating  into  English,  it  is  perhaps 
superior  ;  it  is  what  some  moderns  call  English- 
ing^ making  English,  or  doing  into  English  ;  for 
all  these  expressions  are  used.  Poems  done  in 
this  manner  are  sometimes  more  humbly  termed 
imitations. 

§  7.  I  OBSERVED  a  third  case  that  occurs  in  the 
Gospels  with  respect  to  money  and  measures, 
which  is  when  the  value  of  the  coin,  or  the  ca- 
pacity of  the  measure  mentioned,  does  not,  but 
the  comparative  value  of  the  articles  specified, 
does,  affect  the  sense.  Of  this  kind  some  of  our 
Lord's  parables  furnish  us  with  excellent-  exam- 
ples. Such  is  the  parable  of  the  pounds  I  I  shall 
here  give  as  much  of  it  as  is  necessary  for  my 
present  purpose,  first  in  the  vulgar  translation, 
then  in  Le  Cene's  manner.  13.  He  called  his  ten 
servants,  and  delivered  them  ten  pounds,  and  said 
unto  them,  Occupy  till  I  come.     16.  The  first  came, 

9  Luke,  xix.  13,  &c. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  13 

sayings  Lord,  thy  pound  hath  gained  ten  pounds.^ 
and  he  said  unto  him,  Well,  thou  good  servant : 
because  thou  hast  been  faithful  in  a  very  little, 
have  thou  authority  over  ten  cities,  ^nd  the  second 
came,  saying,  Lord,  thy  pound  hath  gained  Jive 
pounds.  And  he  said  likewise  to  him,  Be  thou 
also  over  five  cities.  Nothing  can  be  more  mani- 
fest than  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  mean- 
ing and  design  of  this  brief  narration,  what  the 
value  of  the  pound  was,  great  or  little.  Let  it 
suffice  that  it  here  represents  the  whole  of  what 
we  receive  from  our  Creator  to  be  laid  out  in  his 
service.  In  Jthe  accounts  returned  by  the  ser- 
vants, we  see  the  different  improvements  which 
different  men  make  of  the  gifts  of  heaven  ;  and  in 
the  recompenses  bestowed,  we  have  their  propor- 
tional rewards.  But  these  depend  entirely  on  the 
numbers  mentioned,  and  are  the  same,  whatever 
be  the  value  of  the  money.  I  shall  now,  in  reduc- 
ing them  to  our  standard,  follow  the  rates  assign- 
ed on  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible.  Ducats, 
so  often  mentioned  by  Le  Cene,  are  no  better 
known  to  the  generality  of  our  people,  than  tal- 
ents or  minoi  are.  Whether  the  rate  of  conver- 
sion I  have  adopted  be  just  or  not,  is  of  no  conse- 
quence. I  shall  therefore  take  it  for  granted,  that 
it  is  just.  The  different  opinions  of  the  compara- 
tive value  of  their  money  and  ours,  nowise  affect 
the  argument.  The  objections  are  against  the  re- 
duction from  the  one  species  to  the  other,  not 
against  the  rule  of  reducing. 

The  foregoing  verses  so  rendered  will  run  thus : 
He  called  his  ten  servants,  and  delivered   them 

VOL-    II.  2 


14  PRELIMINARY  [d.  vm. 

thirty-one  pounds  Jive  shillings  sterlings  and  said. 
Occupy  till  I  come.  The  first  came,*  sayings  Lord, 
thy  three  pounds  two  shillings  and  sixpence,  have 
gained  thirty-one  pounds  five  shillings  ;  and  he 
said  to  him.  Well,  thou  good  servant,  because  thou 
hast  been  faithful  in  a  very  little,  have  thou  author- 
ity over  ten  cities.  And  the  second  came,  saying. 
Lord,  thy  three  pounds  two  shillings  and  sixpence, 
have  gained  fifteen  pounds  twelve  shillings  and 
sixpence.  And  he  said  likewise  to  him.  Be  thou 
also  over  five  cities.  In  regard  to  the  parable  of 
the  talents  ^^,  it  is  needless,  after  the  specimen  now 
given,  to  be  particular.  I  shall  therefore  give 
only  part  of  one  verse  thus  expressed  in  the  com- 
mon version.  To  one  he  gave  five  talents,  to 
another  two,  and  to  another  one  ;  which,  in  Le 
Cene'^s  manner,  would  be.  To  one  he  gave  nine 
htmdred  thirty-seven  pounds  ten  shillings  sterling. 
To  another  three  hundred  seventy-five  pounds. 
And  to  another  one  hundred  eighty-seven  pounds 
ten  shillings.  In  both  examples,  what  is  of  real 
importance,  the  comparative  degrees  of  improve- 
ment and  proportional  rewards,  which  in  the  orig- 
inal, and  in  the  common  version,  are  discovered  at 
a  glance,  are,  if  not  lost,  so  much  obscured,  by 
the  complicated  terms  employed  in  the  version, 
that  it  requires  an  arithmetical  operation  to  dis- 
cover them.  In  the  example  of  the  king  who 
called  his  servants  to  account",  this  manner  is, 
if  possible,  still  more  awkward,  by  reasoit  of  the 

10  Matth.  XXV.  14.  »*  Matth.  xviii.  2!J. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  15 

largeness  of  the  sums.  One  of  them  is  represent- 
ed as  owing  to  the  king  one  million  eight  hundred 
seventy-five  thousand  pounds,  and  his  fellow-ser- 
vant as  indebted  to  him  three  pounds  two  shillings 
and  sixpence.  There  is  som'e  importance  in  the 
comparative  value  of  the  denarius  and  the  talent, 
as  it  appears  evidently  one  purpose  of  our  Lord, 
in  this  parable,  to  show  how  insignificant  the 
greatest  claims  we  can  make  on  our  fellow-crea- 
tures are,  compared  with  those  which  divine  jus- 
tice can  make  on  us.  And,  though  this  be  strongly 
marked  when  the  two  sums  are  reduced  to  one 
denominatioij.,  this  advantage  does  not  counter- 
balance the  badness  of  the  expression,  so  grossly 
unnatural,  unscriptural,  and,  in  every  sense,  im- 
proper. In  conveying  religious  and  moral  instruc- 
tion, to  embarrass  a  reader  or  hearer  with  fractions 
and  complex  numbers,  is  in  a  spirit  and  manner 
completely  the  reverse  of  our  Lord's. 

§  8.  I  WILL  not  further  try  the  patience  of  my 
readers  with  what  has  been  proposed  in  the  same 
taste,  with  respect  to  the  measures,  both  liquid 
and  dry,  mentioned  in  Scripture,  in  the  exhibition 
of  their  respective  capacities  by  the  number  of 
eggs  they  could  contain.  I  am  afraid  I  have  de- 
scended into  too  many  particulars  already,  and 
shall  therefore  only  add  in  general  that,  in  this 
way,  the  beautiful  and  perspicuous  simplicity 
of  holy  writ,  is  exchanged  for  a  frivolous  minute- 
ness, which  descends  to  the  lowest  denomination 
of  parts,    more    in    the    style    of  a    penurious 


16  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

money-broker,  than  in  that  of  a  judicious  moralist, 
not  to  say,  a  divine  teacher.  Persfwcuity  is  there- 
fore injured,  not  promoted,  by  it,  and  to  those  im- 
portant lessons,  an  appearance,  or  rather  a  dis- 
guise, is  given,  which  seems  calculated  to  ruin 
their  effect.  The  author  has  never  reflected  on 
what  I  think  sufficiently  obvious,  that  when  a 
piece  of  money  is  named,  the  name  is  understood 
to  denote  something  more  than  the  weight  of  the 
silver  or  the  gold.  In  the  earliest  ages,  when  it  was 
only  by  weight  that  the  money  of  the  same  metal 
was  distinguished,  if  the  weight  was  the  same, 
or  nearly  so,  the  names  used  in  different  languages 
served  equally  well.  It  was  therefore  both  natur- 
al and  proper  in  the  Seventy  to  render  the  He- 
brew "l^D  checker,  in  Greek  xaAavrov,  and  ?\)\i^ 
shekel,  SiSgaxfia.  For  the  Alexandrian  bidgayjia, 
which  was  double  the  Attic  referred  to  in  the 
New  Testament,  was  half  an  ounce.  But  though 
such  terms  might,  with  propriety,  be  used  promis- 
cuously, when  the  different  denominations  of 
money  expressed  solely  their  different  weights, 
as  was  the  case  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the  Jewish 
commonwealth,  it  is  not  so  now.  The  name 
signifies  a  coin  of  a  particular  form  and  size, 
stamp,  and  inscription.  The  Hebrew  shekel,  the 
Greek  stater,  and  the  British  half-crotvn,  being 
each  about  half  an  ounce  of  silver,  are  nearly 
equivalent.  But  the  names  are  not  synonymous. 
If  one  had  promised  to  show  you  a  stater,  or  a 
shekel,  would  you  think  he  had  discharged  his 
promise  by  producing  half-a-crown  f 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  17 

§  9.  Words  therefore  which  are  by  use  exclu- 
sively appropriated  to  the  coins  and  measures  of 
modern  nations,  can  never  be  used  with  propriety 
in  the  translation  of  an  ancient  author.  I  have 
mentioned  three  Avays  which  a  translator  may 
take,  and  pointed  out  the  different  circumstances 
by  which  the  preference  among  those  methods 
may,  in  any  instance,  be  determined.  When  the 
sense  of  the  passage  does,  in  any  degree,  depend 
on  the  value  of  the  coin,  or  the  capacity  of  the 
measure,  the  original  term  ought  to  be  retained, 
and  if  needful,  explained,  in  a  note.  This  is  the 
way  constant^  used  in  the  translation  of  books 
where  mention  is  made  of  foreign  coins  or  meas- 
ures. What  is  more  common  than  to  find  men- 
tion made,  in  such  works,  of  Dutch  guilders^ 
French  livres,  or  Portuguese  moidores?  I  ac- 
knowledge, at  the  same  time,  the  inconveniency 
of  loading  a  version  of  Scripture  with  strange 
and  uncouth  names.  But  still  this  is  preferable 
to  expressions,  which  how  sm.ooth  soever  they 
be,  do,  in  any  respect,  misrepresent  the  author, 
and  mislead  the  reader.  Our  ears  are  accustom- 
ed to  the  foreign  names  which  are  found  in  the 
common  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  such  as 
shekel^  bath,  ephah  :  though,  where  the  same 
coins  and  measures  are  evidently  spoken  of  in 
the  New,  our  translators  have  not  liked  to  intro- 
duce them,  and  have  sometimes,  less  properly, 
employed  modern  names  which  do  not  correspond 
in  meaning. 


18  PRELIMINARY  [d.viiu 

§  10.  We  have,  besides,  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  names  of  some  Greek  and  Roman  coins  and 
measures  not  mentioned  in  the  Old.     Now,  where 
the  words  are  the  same,  or,  in  common  use,  coin- 
cident with  those  used  by  the   Seventy  in  trans- 
lating the  Hebrew  names  above  mentioned,  I  haVe 
thought  it  better  to  retain  the   Hebrew  words,  to 
which  our  ears  are  familiarized,  by  the  translation 
of  the  Old,  than  to  adopt  new  terms  for  express- 
ing the  same  things.      We  ought  not  surely  to 
make  an  apparent  difference  by  means  of  the  lan- 
guage, where  we  have  reason  to  believe,  that  the 
things  meant  were  the   same.     When  the  word, 
therefore,  in  the    New  Testament,  is  the  name 
of  either  measure  or  coin  peculiar  to  Greeks  or 
Romans,  it  ought  to  be  retained ;  but  when  it  is 
merely  the  term  by  which  a  Hebrew  word,  occur- 
ring in  the  Old  Testament,  has  sometimes  been 
rendered  by  the  Seventy ;  the   Hebrew  name,  to 
which  the  common  version  of  the  Old  Testament 
has  accustomed  us,  ought  to  be  preferred.     For 
this  reason,  I  have,  in  such  cases,  employed  them 
in  the  version  of  the  Gospels,     ^gyvgiov  I  have 
rendered  shekel,  when  used  for  money.     This  was 
the  standard  coin  of  the  Jews ;  and  when  the  He- 
brew word  for  silver  occurs  in   a  plural  significa- 
tion, as   must  be   the    case   when  joined   with    a 
numeral  adjective,  it  is  evidently  this  that  is  meant. 
It  is  commonly  in  the  Septuagint  rendered  agyv- 
pta,  and  in  one  place,  in  the  common   translation, 
silver  lings  ^^.     In  Hebrew  ^D!D  cheseph  and  7pti^ 

*3  Isaiah,  vii.  23. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  19 

shekel^  are  often  used  indiscriminately,  and  both 
are  sometimes  rendered  by  the  same  Greek  word. 
Though  talent  is  not  a  word  of  Hebrew  extraction, 
the  Greek  xaXavTov  is  so  constantly  employed  by 
the  Seventy  in  rendering  the- Hebrew  *)DD  che- 
cker, and  is  so  perfectly  familiar  to  us,  as  the  name 
of  an  ancient  coin  of  the  highest  value,  that  there 
can  be  no  doubt  of  the  propriety  of  retaining  it.  As 
to  the  word  pound,  in  Greek  /wva,  and  in  Hebrew 
n^O  maneh,  as  the  sense  of  the  only  passage 
wherein  it  occurs  in  the  Gospel,  could  hardly,  in 
any  degree,  be  said  to  depend  on  the  value  of  the 
coin  mentioned,  I  have  also  thought  proper  to  re- 
tain the  name  which  had  been  employed  by  the 
English  translators.  Though  pound  is  the  name 
of  a  particular  denomination  of  our  own  money, 
we  all  know  that  it  admits  also  of  an  indefinite 
application  to  that  of  other  nations.  This  is  so 
well  understood,  that  where  there  is  any  risk  of 
mistaking,  we  distinguish  our  own  by  the  addition 
of  sterling.  The  Greek  word  and  the  English  are 
also  analogous  in  this  respect,  that  they  are  names 
both  of  money  and  of  weight.  Both  also  admit 
some  latitude,  in  the  application  to  the  moneys 
and  weights  of  different  countries,  whose  standards 
do  not  entirely  coincide. 

In  regard  to  some  other  words,  though  penny  is 
often  used  indefinite!},  the  common  meaning  dif- 
fers so  much  from  that  of  dijvagiov  in  Scripture, 
and  the  plural  pence  is  so  rarely  used  with  that 
latitude,  that  I  thought  it  better  to  retain  the  Latin 
word.  I  have  reserved  the  Avord  penny  as  a  more 
proper  translation  of  aaaagiov,  between  which  and 


9©  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viiu 

a.  penny  sterling,  the  difference  in  value  is  inconsid- 
erable. This  naturally  determined  me  to  render 
xoSgavzrfs  farthing ;  for  xoSgavzr^s  (that  is,  qtiad- 
rans)  is  originally  a  Latin  word,  as  well  as 
Stfvagiov.  They  correspond  in  etymology  as  well 
as  in  value  ^l  By  this  I  have  avoided  a  double 
impropriety  into  which  our  translators  have  fallen. 
First,  by  rendering  Si^vagiov  a  penny,  and  aaaagiov 
a  farthing,  they  make  us  consider  the  latter  as 
a  fourth  part  of  the  former,  whereas  it  was  but 
one-tenth.  Again,  by  rendering  aaaagiov  and  xo8- 
gavTTfs  by  the  same  word,  they  represent  those 
names  as  synonymous  which  belong  to  coins  of 
very  different  value.  In  translating  Xsnxov,  I  have 
retained  the  word  mite,  which  is  become  prover- 
bial for  the  lowest  denomination  of  money.  Dis- 
quisitions on  little  points,  more  curious  than  use- 
ful, I  always  endeavour  to  avoid. 

§11.  As  to  measures,  wherever  the  knowledge 
of  the  capacity  was  of  no  use  for  throwing  light 
on  the  passage,  I  have  judged  it  always  sufficient 
to  employ  some  general  term,  as  measure,  barrel, 
&c.  Of  this  kind  is  the  parable  of  the  unjust 
steward.  The  degree  of  his  villany  is  sufficiently 
discovered  by  the  numbers.  But  where  it  is  the 
express  view  of  the  writer  to  communicate  some 
notion  of  the  size  and  capacity,  as  in  the  account 
given  of  the  water-pots  at  the  marriage  in  Cana, 
or  wherever  such  knowledge  is  of  importsince  to 
the  sense,  those  general  words  ought  not  to  be 

*^  Farthing  from  the  Sdixon  feorthling,  that  is,  the  fourth  part 


T.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  21 

used.  Such  are  the  reasons  for  the  manner  which 
I  have  adopted  in  this  work,  in  regard  to  money 
and  measures.  There  is  no  rule  that  can  be  fol- 
lowed which  is  not  attended  with  some  inconve- 
niences. Whether  the  plan  -here  laid  down  be 
attended  with  the  fewest,  the  judicious  and  can- 
did reader  will  judge. 


PART  II. 


RITES,    FESTIVALS,    AND    SECTS. 

The  second  class  of  words  to  which  it  is  not 
always  possible  to  find  in  another  language  equiv- 
alent terms,  is  the  names  of  rites,  festivals,  and 
sects,  religious,  political,  or  philosophical.  Of 
all  words  the  names  of  sects  come  the  nearest  to 
the  condition  of  proper  names,  and  are  almost 
always  considered  as  not  admitting  a  translation 
into  the  language  of  those  who  are  unacquainted 
with  the  sect.  This  holds  equally  of  modern,  as 
of  ancient,  sects.  There  are  no  words  in  other 
languages  answering  to  the  English  terms  whig 
and  tory,  or  to  the  names  of  the  Italian  and  Ger- 
man parties  called  guelph  and  ghibelin.  It  is 
exactly  the  same  with  philosophical  sects,  as  ma- 
gian,  stoic,  peripatetic,  epicurean  ;  and  with  the  re- 
ligious sects  among  the  Jews,  pharisee,  sadducee, 

VOL.    II.  3 


22        *  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viu. 

essene,  karaite,  rabbinist.  Yet  even  this  rule  is 
not  without  exception.  When  the.  sect  has  been 
denominated  from  some  common  epithet  or  appel- 
lative thought  to  be  particularly  applicable  to 
the  party,  the  translation  of  the  epithet  or  ap- 
pellative, serves  in  other  languages  as  a  name  to 
the  sect.  Thus  those  who  are  called  by  the 
Greeks  TedaagsaxaidsTcaTtTai,  from  their  celebrat- 
ing Easter  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month, 
were,  by  the  Romans,  called  quartadecimani, 
which  is  a  translation  of  the  Avord  into  Latin.  In 
like  manner,  our  quakers  are  called  in  French 
trembletirs.  Yet  in  this  their  authors  are  not  uni-- 
form  ;  they  sometimes  adopt  the  English  word. 
In  regard  to  the  sects  mentioned  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, I  do  not  know  that  there  has  been  any 
difference  among  translators.  The  ancient  names 
seem  to  be  adopted  by  all. 

§  2.  As  to  rites  and  festivals,  which,  being 
nearly  related,  may  be  considered  together,  the 
case  is  somewhat  different.  The  original  word, 
when  expressive  of  the  principal  action  in  the 
rite,  or  in  the  celebration  of  the  festival,  is 
sometimes  translated,  and  sometimes  retained. 
In  these  it  is  proper  to  follow  the  usage  of  the 
language,  even  although  the  distinctions  made 
may  originally  have  been  capricious.  In  several 
modern  languages  we  have,  in  what  regards  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  rites,  generall}^  followed  the 
usage  of  the  old  Latin  version,  though  the  authors 
of  that  version  have  not  been  entirely  uniform  in 
their  method.     Some  words  they  have  transferred 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  23 

from  the  original  into  their  language  ;  others 
they  have  translated.  But  it  Avould  not  always 
be  easy  to  find  their  reason  for  making  this  dif- 
ference. Thus  the  word  nEgiJOfxri  they  have 
translated  circumcisio,  which  lexactly  corresponds 
in  etymology  ;  but  the  word  ^anxKjfia  they  have 
retained,  changing  only  the  letters  from  Greek  to 
Roman.  Yet  the  latter  was  just  as  susceptible  of 
a  literal  version  into  Latin  as  the  former.  Immer- 
sio  tinctio,  answers  as  exactly  in  the  one  case,  as 
circiimcisio  in  the  other.  And  if  it  be  said  of 
those  words,  that  they  do  not  rest  on  classical 
authoritj ,  the  same  is  true  also  of  this.  Etymolo- 
gy, and  the  usage  of  ecclesiastic  authors,  are  all 
that  can  be  pleaded. 

Now,  the  use  with  respect  to  the  names  adopt- 
ed in  the  Vulgate,  has  commonly  been  imitated, 
or  rather  impli<'.itly  followed,  through  the  western 
parts  of  Europe.  We  have  deserted  the  Greek 
names  where  the  Latins  have  deserted  them, 
and  have  adopted  them  where  the  Latins  have 
adopted  them.  Hence  we  say  circumcision,  and  not 
peritomy  ;  and  we  do  not  say  immersion,  but  bap- 
tism. Yet  when  the  language  furnishes  us  with 
materials  for  a  version  so  exact  and  analogical, 
such  a  version  conveys  the  sense  more  perspicu- 
ously than  a  foreign  name.  For  this  reason,  I 
should  think  the  word  immersion  (which,  though 
of  Latin  origin,  is  an  English  noun,  regularly 
formed  from  the  verb  to  immerse,)  a  better  Eng- 
lish name  than  baptism,  were  we  now  at  liberty 
to  make  a  choice.  But  we  are  not.  The  latter 
term  has  been  introduced,  and  has  obtained  the 


24  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

universal  suffrage  :  and,  though  to  us  not  so  ex- 
pressive of  the  action  ;  3  et,  as  it  conveys  nothing 
false,  or  unsuitable  to  the  primitive  idea,  it  has  ac- 
quired a  right  by  prescription,  and  is  consequently 
entitled  to  the  preference. 

§  3.  I  SAID  that,  in  the  names  of  rites  or  sacred 
ceremonies,  we  have  commonly  followed  the  Vul- 
gate. In  some  instances,  however,  we  have  not. 
The  great  Jewish  ceremony,  in  commemoration 
of  their  deliverance  from  Egypt,  is  called  in  the 
'New  Testament  7taa%a,  the  sacred  penmen  hav- 
ing adopted  the  term  that  had  been  used  by  the 
Seventy,  which  is  not  a  Greek  word,  but  the  He- 
brew, or  rather  the  Chaldaic,  name  in  Greek  let- 
ters. The  Vulgate  has  retained  pascha,  transfer- 
ring it  into  the  Latin  character.  The  words  in 
Greek  and  Latin  have  no  meaning  but  as  the 
name  of  this  rite.  In  English  the  word  has  not 
been  transferred,  but  translated  passover,  answer- 
ing in  our  language  to  the  import  of  the  original 
Hebiew.  JJxrfvojtrfyia,  scenopegia,  in  the  Gospel 
of  John",  is  retained  by  the  Vulgate,  and  with 
us  translated  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  It  would 
have  been  still  nearer  the  original  Hebrew,  and 
more  conformable  to  the  Jewish  practice,  to  have 
called  it  the  feast  of  booths.  But  the  other  ap- 
pellation has  obtained  the  preference.  The 
Latins  have  retained  the  Greek  name  azyma, 
which   we   render,  properly   enough,  unleavened 

**  John,  yii.  2. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  25 

bread.     But  the  words  jubilee.,  sabbath.,  purim,  and 
some  others,  run  through  most  languages. 

§  4.  There  is  a  conveniency  in  translating, 
rather  than  transplanting,  the  original  term,  if 
the  word  chosen  be  apposite,  as  it  more  clearly 
conveys  the  import,  than  an  exotic  word,  that  has 
no  original  meaning  or  etymology  in  the  language. 
This  never  appears  in  a  stronger  light  than  when 
the  reason  of  the  name  happens  to  be  assigned  by 
the  sacred  author.  I  shall  give,  for  instance,  that 
Hebrew  appellative,  which  I  but  just  now  ob- 
served, that  J)oth  the  Seventy  and  the  Vulgate 
have  retained  in  their  versions,  and  which  the 
English  interpreters  have  translated.  The  word 
is,  pascha,  passover.  In  the  explanation  which  the 
people  are  commanded  to  give  of  this  service  to 
their  children,  when  these  shall  inquire  concerning 
it,  the  reason  of  the  name  is  assigned*^  :  Ye  shall 
say,  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  passover,  who 
PASSED  OVER  thc  houscs  of  the  children  of  Israel 
in  Egypt,  when  he  smote  the  Egyptians.  Now, 
this  reason  appears  as  clearly  in  the  English  ver- 
sion, which  is  literal,  as  in  the  original  Hebrew  ; 
but  it  is  lost  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  who 
render  it  thus  :  EgsLzs-  Gvaia  to  IIAI^XA  tovto 
Kvgicj,  'ag  EI^KEUAZE  xovs  oixovs  rav  ^viav 
I(Sgai^X  ev  Aiyvma,  'r^vixa  f  7rara|f  Tovg  AiyvmLovs. 
Here,  as  the  words  naaxoi,  and  saxEnaGs  have  no 
affinity,  it  is  impossible  to  discover  the  reason  of 
the  name.     The  authors  of  the  Vulgate,  who  form 

*5  Exodus,  xii.  27. 


26  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

the  word  phase,  in  the  Old  Testament,  more  close- 
ly after  the  Hebrew  (though  they  call  it  pascha 
in  the  New,)  have  thought  proper,  in  turning  that 
passage,  to  drop  the  name  they  had  adopted,  and 
translate  the  word  transihis,  that  the  allusion 
might  not  be  lost.  Dicetis,  victima  transitus  Do- 
mini est,  quando  transivit  super  domos  Jiliorum 
Israel  in  ,^gypto,  percutiens  ,Egyptios. 

This  manner  is  sometimes  necessary,  for  giving 
a  just  notion  of  the  sense.  But  it  is  still  better 
when  the  usual  name,  in  the  language  of  the  ver- 
sion, as  happens  in  the  English,  preserves  the 
analogy,  and  renders  the  change  unnecessary.  In 
proper  names,  it  is  generally  impossible  to  pre- 
serve the  allusion  in  a  version.  In  such  cases, 
the  natural  resource  is  the  margin.  The  occasion 
is  not  so  frequent  in  appellatives,  but  it  occurs 
sometimes.  It  is  said,  by  Adam,  of  the  woman  ^^ 
soon  after  her  formation,  She  shall  be  called  woman, 
because  she  was  formed  out  ofmx^.  Here  the  affini- 
ty of  the  names,  woman  and  man,  is  preserved,  with- 
out doing  violence  to  the  language.  But,  in  some 
versions,  the  affinity  disappears  altogether,  and, 
in  others,  is  effected  by  assigning  a  name  which, 
if  it  may  be  used  at  all,  cannot,  with  propriety, 
be  given  to  the  sex  in  general.  It  is  lost  in  the 
Septuagint  ^Avtti  yc}.7^&7fasTai  FTNH,  'on  sx  tov 
AN/IPOH  avTTf?  sXricpd-ri  'avxri.  Not  the  shadow 
of  a  reason  appears  in  what  is  here  assigned  as  the 
reason.     The    sounds   yvvri   and   avBgo?   liave  no 

16  Gen.  ii.  23. 


p.  in.]  DISSERTATIONS.  27 

affinity.  The  same  may  be  said  of  mulier  and  vir 
in  Castalio's  Latin.  H(Kc  vocabitur  mulier,  quia 
sumpta  de  viro  est.  Other  Latin  interpreters 
have,  for  the  sake  of  that  resemblance  in  the 
words,  on  which  the  meaning*  of  the  expression 
depends,  chosen  to  sacrifice  a  little  of  their  latinity. 
The  Vulgate,  and  Leo  de  Juda,  have,  H(2c  vocabi- 
tur VIRAGO,  qtiia  sumpta  de  viro  est.  Junius,  Le 
Clerc,  and  Houbigant,  use  the  word  vira^  upon  the 
authority  of  Festus.  Neither  of  the  words  is  good 
in  this  application ;  but  not  worse  than  avdgts  e§ 
avSgos,  used  by  Symmachus  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. Much  in  the  same  taste  are  Luther's  mccn- 
nin,  the  homasse  of  the  Geneva  French,  and  the 
huoma  of  Diodati's  Italian. 


PART  III. 


DRESS,    JUDICATORIES,    AND    OFFICES. 

I  SHALL  now  proceed  to  the  third  general  class 
of  words,  not  capable  of  being  translated,  with 
exactness,  into  the  language  of  a  people  whose 
customs  are  not  in  a  great  measure  conformable 
to  the  customs  of  those  amongst  whom  such  words 
have  arisen.  This  class  comprehends  names  re- 
lating to  dress,  peculiar  modes,  judicatories,  and 
offices.     In  regard  to  garments,  it  is  well  known, 


^38  PRELIMINARY  [b.  viii. 

that  the  usages  of  the  ancients,  particularly  the 
Orientals,  differed  considerably  from  those  of 
modern  Europeans.  And  though  I  am  by  no 
means  of  opinion,  that  it  is  necessary,  in  a  trans- 
lation, to  convey  an  idea  of  the  exact  form  of  their 
dress,  when  nothing  in  the  piece  translated  ap- 
pears to  depend  on  that  circumstance,  I  am  ever 
for  avoiding  that  which  would  positively  convey 
a  false  notion  in  this  or  any  other  respect.  Often, 
from  that  which  may  be  thought  a  trivial  deviation 
from  truth,  there  will  result  inconveniences,  of 
which  one  at  first  is  not  aware,  but  which,  never- 
theless, may  produce  in  the  mind  of  the  attentive 
reader,  unacquainted  with  the  original,  objections 
that  affect  the  credibility  of  the  narration.  A 
general  name,  therefore,  like  clothes^  raiment^  is 
sufficient,  when  nothing  depends  on  the  form,  in  like 
manner  as  a  piece  of  money,  a  corn  measw^e,  will 
answer,  when  no  light,  for  understanding  the 
scope  of  the  place,  can  be  derived  from  the  value 
of  the  one,  or  the  capacity  of  the  other.  Where 
some  distinction,  however,  seems  to  have  been  in- 
tended in  the  passage,  there  is  a  necessity  for 
using  names  more  definitive.  It  is  not  often  ne- 
cessary, for  naming  the  parts  of  dress,  to  retain  the 
terms  of  a  dead  language.  The  English  translators 
have  never  done  it,  as  far  as  I  remember,  except 
in  naming  that  part  of  the  sacerdotal  vestments, 
called  the  ephod,  for  which  it  would  be  impossible 
to  find  an  apposite  term  in  any  European^  tongue. 
Phylacteries,  too,  will  perhaps  be  accounted  an 
exception. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  29 

§  2.  But,  though  it  is  rarely  necessary  to  adopt 
the  ancient  or  foreign  names  of  garments,  it  may 
not  be  always  proper  to  employ  those  terms  for 
expressing  them,  which   are  appropriated  to  par- 
ticular pieces  of  the  modern  European  habit.    The 
word  coat  answers  well  enough  as  a  name  for  the 
under  garment,  in  Greek  ;^fT«v.     Cloak,  by  which 
our  translators  in  the  New  Testament  commonly 
render  'ifiaxiov,  the  name  for  the  upper  garment, 
I  do  not  so  much  approve.     My  reasons  are  these : 
First,  cloak  is  not  the  term  that  they  have  used  in 
the  Old  Testament  for  that  vestment ;  though  we 
have  no    reason  to  believe  that  there    was  any 
change  in  the  Jewish  fashions  in  this  particular. 
It  is  well  known,  that  the  modes,  respecting  dress, 
are  not,  nor  ever  were,  in  Asia,  as  at  present  they 
are   in   Europe,   variable   and   fluctuating.      The 
Orientals  are  as  remarkable  for  constancy  in  this 
particular,   as   we    are   for   the   contrary.      Now, 
though  the   Hebrew  words,  answering  to  'ifiariov, 
are    frequent    in    the    Old   Testament,   and   the 
Greek  word  itself  in  the  translation  of  the  Seven- 
ty, the  word  cloak  has  never  been  admitted  by 
our  translators  into  the  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
me  it,  except  once  in  Isaiah  ^^,  where  it  is  used 
only  as  a  simile.      Wherever  they  have    thought 
proper  to  distinguish  the  upper  garment  from  that 
worn  close   to  the  body,  they  have  named  it  the 
mantle.     See  the  places  marked  in  the  narg  n 


18 


*7  Isaiah,  lix.    17.  ^^  Judges,   iv.  18.     1  Sam.  xxviii.  14. 

1  Kings,  xix.  13.  19.  2  Kings,  ii.  8.  13,  M.  Ezra,  ix.  3.  5. 
Job,  i.  20.    Job,  ii.  12.     Psal.  cix.  29. 

VOL.    II.  4 


30  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

But  these  are  not  all  the  places  in  which  the 
original  word  might  have  been  so  rendered. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  it  means  garments  in  general, 
and  in  the  plural  especially,  signifies  clothes. 
Now,  though  the  difference  of  a  name  employed 
in  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be 
thought  too  slight  a  circumstance  for  founding  an 
argument  upon,  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  trans- 
lating the  New,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that,  even 
if  the  words  mantle  and  cloak  were  equally  proper, 
we  ought  not,  by  an  unnecessary  change,  without 
any  reason,  to  give  ground  to  imagine,  that  there 
had  been,  in  this  article,  any  alteration  in  the 
Jewish  customs. 

Secondly,  I  am  the  more  averse  to  introduce,  in 
the  New  Testament,  a  change  of  the  name  that 
had  been  used  in  the  Old,  as  it  is  evident  that,  in 
Judea,  they  placed  some  share  of  religion  in  re- 
taining their  ancient  garb.  They  did  not  think 
themselves  at  liberty  to  depart  from  the  customs 
of  their  ancestors  in  this  point.  As  their  law  had 
regulated  some  particidars  in  relation  to  their 
habit,  they  looked  upon  the  form  as  intended  for 
distinguishing  them  from  the  heathen,  and  conse- 
quently as  sacred  '^ :  the  knots  of  strings  which 
they  were  appointed  to  put  upon  the  four  corners 
or  wings,  as  they  called  them,  did  not  suit  any 
other  form  of  outer  garment,  than  that  to  which 
they  had  been  always  accustomed. 

Thirdly,  the  word  mantle  comes  nearer  a  just 
representation  of  the  loose  vesture  worn  by  the 

19  Numb.  XV.  38,  39.     Deut.  xxii.  12. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  31 

Hebrews,  than  cloak,  or  any  other  term,  which  re- 
fers us  to  something  particular  in  the  make. 
Whereas  their 't^ariov  was  an  oblong  piece  of 
cloth,  square  at  the  corners,  in  shape  resembling 
more  the  plaid  of  a  Scotch  Highlander,  than  either 
the  Greek  pallium  or  the  Roman  toga.  This 
mantle,  it  would  appear,  on  ordinary  occasions, 
they  threw  loosely  about  them ;  and,  when  em- 
ployed in  any  sort  of  work  in  which  it  might 
encumber  them,  laid  aside  altogether.  To  this, 
doubtless,  our  Lord  refers,  in  that  expression  ^*^, 
Let  not  him  ivho  shall  be  in  the  field,  return  home 
to  fetch  his  mantle.  When  setting  out  on  a  jour- 
ney, or  entering  on  any  business,  compatible  with 
the  use  of  this  garment,  they  tucked  it  up  with  a 
girdle,  that  it  might  not  incommode  them.  Hence, 
the  similitude  of  having  their  loins  girt,  to  express 
alertness,  and  habitual  preparation  for  the  dis- 
charge of  duty.  I  know  not  why  those  who 
have  been  so  inclinable,  in  some  other  articles,  to 
give  a  modern  cast  to  the  manners  of  those  an- 
cients, have  not  modernized  them  in  this  also,  and 
transformed  girding  their  loins,  a  very  antique 
phrase,  into  buttoning  their  waistcoasts.  This 
freedom  would  not  be  so  great,  as  the  reduction 
of  their  money  and  measures  above  considered. 
It  would  not  even  be  greater  than  giving  them 
candles  for  lamps,  and  making  them  sit  at  their 
meals,  instead  of  reclining  on  couches.  In  regard 
to  this  last  mode,  I  propose  to  consider  it  imme- 
diately. 

20  Mark,  xiii.  16. 


32  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

§  3.  Of  all  their  customs  they  were  not  so  tena- 
cious, as  of  what  regarded  the  .form  of  their 
clothes.  In  things  which  were  not  conceived  to 
be  connected  with  religion,  and  about  which 
neither  the  law,  nor  tradition,  had  made  any  regu- 
lation, they  did  not  hesitate  to  conform  themselves 
to  the  manners  of  those  under  whose  power  they 
had  fallen.  A  remarkable  instance  of  this  appears, 
in  their  adopting  the  mode  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  in  lying  on  couches  at  their  meals.  In 
the  Old  Testament  times,  the  practice  of  sitting 
on  such  occasions,  appears  to  have  been  universal. 
It  is  justly  remarked  by  Philo  ^^,  that  Joseph 
"  made  his  brethren  sit  down  according  to  their 
"  ages ;  for  men  were  not  then  accustomed  to 
"  lie  on  beds  at  entertainments."  The  words,  in 
the  Septuagint  ^^,  are  sxa&iaav  svavjiov  avjov  :  in 
the  English  translation,  They  sat  before  him ; 
both  literally  from  the  Hebrew.  In  like  manner ^^ 
txad'taav  8s  (paysiv  agxov,  they  sat  down  to  eat 
bread ;  and  ^^  sxad'icfsv  'o  Xaos  (paysLv  xat  nuiv, 
the  people  sat  down  to  eat  and  drink.  Solomon 
says  ^\  When  thou  sittest  to  eat  with  a  ruler,  Eav 
xad-idTfs  8si7tv£iv  87ZL  zpaTTf^T^s  SvvaciTov.  But  it 
were  endless  to  enumerate  all  the  examples. 
Suffice  it  to  observe,  that  this  is  as  uniformly 
employed  to  express  the  posture  at  table  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  avaxXiva,  or  some  synonymous 

^*  'E^rjg  d£  TigoCra^avTog  xaza  ras  riXixiag  xaO^i^eddai,  fitjjico 
zoiv  av^Q037i(j3V  tv  Tuis  6vfi7iOTixaLS  6vvov6iaig  xaruxXiOei  /pw- 
fievojv.     Lib.  de  Josepho. 

22  Gen.  xliii.  33.  ss  Gen.  xxxvii.  25. 

*<  Exod.  xxxii.  6.  35  prov.  xxiii.  1. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  .  33 

term,  is  employed,  for  the  same  purpose,  in  the 
New.  The  Hebrew  word  is  equally  unequivocal 
with  the  Greek.  It  is  always  !3C^*  jashab,  to  sit^ 
never  DDIT  shachab,  or  any  other  word  that  im- 
ports lying  down. 

Some,  indeed,  have  contended,  that  this  manner 
of  eating  was  practised  among  the  Jews  before 
the  captivity  ;  and  in  support  of  this  opinion,  have 
produced  the  passage  in  Samuel  ^%  where  Saul 
is  spoken  of  as  eating  on  the  bed.  But  the  pas- 
sage, when  examined,  makes  clearly  against  the 
opinion  for  which  it  has  been  quoted.  The  histo- 
rian's expression  is,  sat  upon  the  bed.  Nor  is  this, 
as  in  the  New  Testament,  the  style  merely  of 
modern  translators ;  it  is  that  of  the  original,  as 
well  as  of  all  the  ancient  translations.  The  Septua- 
gint  says  sxad^ias,  the  Vulgate  sedit.  Houbigant 
is  the  only  translator  I  know  (who,  misled,  I  sup- 
pose, by  the  ordinary  style  of  Latin  authors,)  has 
said  decubuit.  The  Hebrew  word  is  ^JZ'*  jashab, 
which  never  signifies  to  lie.  Now,  whether  a  man 
on  a  bed  takes  his  repast  sitting,  after  the  European 
manner,  with  his  feet  on  the  floor,  or  after  the 
Turkish,  with  his  legs  across  under  him,  his  pos- 
ture differs  totally  from  that  of  the  ancient  Greeks 
and  Romans,  who  lay  at  their  length. 

The  words  of  the  Prophet  Amos  ^^  have  also 
been  thought  to  favour  the  same  opinion  :  Wo  to 
them  that  lie  upon  beds  of  ivory,  and  stretch  them- 
selves upon  their  couches,  and  eat  the  lambs  out  of 

*^  1  Sam.  xxviii.  23.  ^^  Amos,  vi.  4,  &c. 


34  PRELIMINARY  [d.  vm. 

the  flock,  and  the  calves  out  of  the  stall,  that  chant 
to  the  sound  of  the  viol,  &c.  Here  the  Prophet 
upbraids  the  people  with  their  sloth  and  luxury, 
specifying  a  few  instances  in  their  manner  of  liv- 
ing. But  nothing  is  said  that  implies  any  other 
connection  among  these  instances,  than  that  of 
their  being  the  effects  of  the  same  cause,  voluptu- 
ousness. We  have  no  more  reason  to  connect 
their  eating  the  lambs  and  the  calves  with  their 
lying  stretched  on  beds  of  ivory,  than  we  have 
to  connect  with  this  posture,  their  chanting  to  the 
sound  of  the  viol,  and  anointing  themselves  with 
ointments- 

But  in  the  Apocryphal  writings,  which  are  poste- 
rior in  composition  to  those  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  probably  posterior  to  the  Macedonian  con- 
quests, though  prior  to  the  books  of  the  New,  we 
have  the  first  indications  of  this  change  of  pos- 
ture. It  is  said  of  Judith  ^^  in  the  common  ver- 
sion, that  her  maid  laid  soft  skins  on  the  ground 
for  her  over  against  Holofernes,  that  she  might  sit 
and  eat  upon  them,  us  to  saduiv  xaTaxXivof.uvriv 
£7t  avrav,  literally,  that  she  might  eat  lying  upon 
them.  Again,  in  Tobit  ^^,  avensaa  tov  (payeiv,  not 
/  sat,  but  /  lay  down  to  eat.  Other  examples 
might  be  given  w^hich  render  it  probable  that  this 
fashion  was  first  introduced  into  Judea  by  the 
Greeks,  before  the  Jews  became  acquainted  Avith 
the  Romans.  A  sure  evidence  this,  that  the  Jews 
were  not  so  obstinately  tenacious  of  every  national 
custom,  as  some  have  represented  them.      It  is 

*8  Judith,  xli.  15.  29  Tobit,  ii.  1. 


r.  1,1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  35 

very  remarkable  that,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  the 
change  was  so  universal  in  Judea,  that  the  very 
common  people  always  conformed  to  it.  The 
multitudes  which  our  Lord  twice  fed  in  the  desert, 
are  by  all  the  Evangelists  represented  as  lyings 
not  sitting,  upon  the  ground.  It  is  strange  that 
our  translators  have  here,  by  misinterpreting  one 
word,  as  invariably  exhibited  them  practising  a 
custom  which  they  had  abandoned,  as  they  had 
formerly,  by  the  unwarranted  and  unnecessary 
change  of  a  name,  given  ground  to  think  that  there 
was  an  alteration  in  their  customs,  when  there 
was  none.       \ 

§  4.  I  KNOW  it  is  commonly  pleaded  in  excuse 
for  such  deviations  from  the  original,  as  that 
whereof  I  am  now  speaking,  that  the  posture  is  a 
circumstance  noway  material  to  the  right  under- 
standing of  the  passages  wherein  it  is  occasionally 
mentioned ;  that  besides,  to  us  moderns,  there  ap- 
pears in  the  expressions  lying  down  to  eat,  and 
laying  themselves  at  table,  from  their  repugnancy 
to  our  customs,  an  awkwardness  which,  so  far  from 
contributing  to  fix  our  minds  on  the  principal 
scope  of  the  author,  would  divert  our  attention 
from  it.  In  answer  to  the  first  of  these  objec- 
tions, I  admit  that  it  is  sometimes,  not  always, 
as  Avill  soon  be  shown,  of  no  consequence  to  the 
import  of  a  passage,  whether  a  mere  circumstance, 
which  is  but  occasionally  mentioned,  and  on  which 
the  instruction  conveyed  in  the  story  does  not  de- 
pend, be  rightly  apprehended  or  not.  The  two 
miracles  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  are  to  all  valuable 


36  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

purposes  the  same,  whether  the  people  partook  of 
their  repast  sitting  or  lying.     Th'e  like   may  be 
said  of  the  greater  part  of  such   narratives.     For 
this    reason   I   do    not    except    against    a    gen- 
eral   expression,  as,  placed    themselves   at   table, 
where  a  literal  version  would  be  attended  with  the 
inconvenience  of  appearing  unnatural :  but  I  could 
never  approve,  for  the  sake   of  elegance  or  sim- 
plicity, a  version  which,  in  effect,  misrepresents 
the  original ;  or,  in  other  words,  from  which  one 
may  fairly  deduce  inferences  that  are  not  conform- 
able to  fact.     Concerning  the  other  exception,  I 
cannot  help  observing,  that  it  is  only  because  the 
expression  lying  at  table   is  unusual,  that  it  ap- 
pears   awkward.     If  the  first   translators    of  the 
Bible  into  English  had  thought  fit,  in  this  instance, 
to  keep  close  to  the  original,  the  phrases  would 
not  now  have  sounded  awkwardly.     But  it  must 
be    owned  that  no  translators  enjoy   at   present 
equal  advantages  with  those  who  had,  in  a  manner, 
the  forming  of  our  language,  in  regard  to  things 
sacred.     Their  versions,  by  being  widely  dispers- 
ed, would  soon  give  a  currency  to  the  terms  used 
in  them,  which  there  was  then  no  contrary  use  to 
counterbalance.     And  this  is  the  reason  why  many 
things  which  might  have  been    better   rendered 
then,  cannot  now  so  well  be  altered. 

§  5.  But  to  show  that  even  such  errors  in  trans- 
lating, however  trivial  they  may  appear,  are  some- 
times highly  injurious  to  the  sense,  and  render  a 
plain  story  not  only  incredible  but  absurd,  I  must 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  37 

entreat  the  reader's  attention  to  the  following  pas- 
sage, as  it  runs  in  the  common  version  ^" :  One  of 
the  Pharisees  desired  Jesus  that  he  would  eat  with 
him  ;  and  he  went  into  the  Pharisee'' s  house,  and 
sat  down  to  meat.  And  behold  a  vjoman  in  the 
city,  which  was  a  sinner,  when  she  knew  that  Jesus 
sat  at  meat  in  the  Pharisee^s  house,  brought  an 
alabaster  box  of  ointment,  and  stood  at  his  feet  be- 
hind him  iveeping,  and  began  to  wash  his  feet  with 
tears,  and  did  wipe  them  with  the  hairs  of  her 
head,  and  kissed  his  feet,  and  anointed  them  with 
the  ointment.  Now  a  reader  of  any  judgment  will 
need  to  reflect  but  a  moment  to  discover,  that 
what  is  here  t6ld  is  impossible.  If  Jesus  and  others 
were  in  our  manner  sitting  together  at  table,  the 
woman  could  not  be  behind  them,  when  doing 
what  is  here  recorded.  She  must  in  that  case,  on 
the  contrary,  have  been  under  the  table.  The 
chairs,  on  which  the  guests  were  seated,  would 
have  effectually  precluded  access  from  behind.  It 
is  said  also  that  she  stood,  while  she  bathed  his  feet 
with  tears,  wiped  them  with  the  hairs  of  her  head, 
anointed  and  kissed  them.  Another  manifest  ab- 
surdity. On  the  supposition  of  their  sitting,  she 
must  have  been  at  least  kneeling,  if  not  lying  on 
the  floor.  These  inconsistencies  instantly  disap- 
pear, when  the  Evangelist  is  allowed  to  speak  for 
himself,  who,  instead  of  saying  that  Jesus  sat 
down,  says  expressly  that  he  lay  down,  avexXi&jf. 
And  to  prevent,  if  possible,  a  circumstance  being 

5^^  Luke,  vii.  36,  37,  38. 
VOL,    II-  5 


38  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

mistaken  or  overlooked,  on  which  the  practicabili- 
ty of  the  thing  depended,  he  repeats  it^by  a  sy- 
nonymous term  in  the  very  next  verse.  "  When 
"  she  knew  that  Jesus  lay  at  table,"  avaxuxaL.  The 
knowledge  of  their  manner  at  meals  makes  every 
thing  in  this  story  level  to  an  ordinary  capacity. 

§  6.  At  their  feasts,  matters  were  commonly 
ordered  thus :  Three  couches  were  set  in  the 
form  of  the  Greek  letter  U^  the  table  was  placed 
in  the  middle,  the  lower  end  whereof  was  left 
open,  to  give  access  to  the  servants,  for  setting 
and  removing  the  dishes,  and  serving  the  guests. 
The  other  three  sides  were  inclosed  by  the 
couches,  whence  it  got  the  name  of  triclinium. 
The  middle  couch,  which  lay  along  the  upper  end 
of  the  table,  and  was  therefore  accounted  the  most 
honourable  place,  and  that  which  the  Pharisees 
are  said  particularly  to  have  affected,  was  distin- 
guished by  the  name  TtgaToxXiGia  ^^  The  person 
intrusted  with  the  direction  of  the  entertainment  was 
called  agxixgiycXLvos  ^^.  The  guests  lay  with  their 
feet  backwards,  obliquely,  across  the  couches, 
which  were  covered,  for  their  better  accommoda- 
tion, with  such  sort  of  cloth,  or  tapestry,  as  suited 
the  quality  of  the  entertainer.  As  it  was  neces- 
sary, for  the  conveniency  of  eating,  that  the 
couches  should  be  somewhat  higher  than  the 
table,  the  guests  have  probably  been  raised  by 
them   three    feet,   and   upwards,   from   the   floor. 

'1  Matth.  xxiii.  6.  '^  John,  ii.  8. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  39 

When  these  particulars  are  taken  into  considera- 
tion, every  circumstance  of  the  story  becomes 
perfectly  consistent  and  intelligible.  This  also 
removes  the  difficulty  there  is  in  the  account  giv- 
en, by  John'^  of  the  paschal  supper,  where  Jesus 
being  set,  as  our  translators  render  it,  at  table,  one 
of  his  disciples  is  said,  in  one  verse,  to  have  been 
leaning  on  his  bosom,  and  in  another,  to  have 
been  lying  on  his  breast.  Though  these  attitudes 
are  incompatible  with  our  mode  of  sitting  at  meals, 
they  were  naturally  consequent  upon  theirs.  As 
they  lay  forwards,  in  a  direction  somewhat  ob- 
lique, feeding,  themselves  with  their  right  hand, 
and  leaning  on  their  left  arm  ;  they  no  sooner  in- 
termitted, and  reclined  a  little,  than  the  head  of 
each  came  close  to  the  breast  of  him  who  was 
next  on  the  left.  Now,  a  circumstance  (however 
frivolous  in  itself)  cannot  be  deemed  of  no  conse- 
quence, which  serves  to  throw  light  upon  the 
sacred  pages,  and  solve  difficulties,  otherwise  in- 
extricable. This  case,  though  not  properly  re- 
quiring the  use  of  any  ancient  or  foreign  name,  I 
could  not  help  considering  minutely  in  this  place, 
on  account  of  its  affinity  with  the  other  topics  of 
which  I  had  been  treating. 

§  7.  I  SHALL  add  a  few  things,  on  the  manner 
adopted  by  other  translators  in  rendering  what  re- 
lates to  this  usage.  With  regard  to  the  Latin  ver- 
sions,  it  may   naturally   be    supposed,    that   the 

85  John,  xiii.  23.  25. 


40  PRELIMINARY  [d.  yiii. 

Vulgate  would  be  literal,  and  consequently,  in  this 
particular,  just.  There  was  no  tetnptation  to  de- 
part from  the  letter.  It  suited  their  customs  at 
that  period,  as  well  as  the  idiom  of  their  language. 
And  though  it  did  not  suit  the  customs  of  the 
times  of  modern  Latin  interpreters,  they  could 
have  no  motive,  in  this  article,  to  desert  the  man- 
ner of  the  ancient  translator,  expressed  in  a  phra- 
seology which  both  Latin  and  Greek  classics  had 
rendered  familiar.  As  to  the  translations  into  mod- 
ern tongues,  Luther  appears  to  have  been  the 
first  who,  in  his  translation  into  German,  has,  in 
this  particular,  forced  the  Evangelists  into  a  con- 
formity with  modern  fashions.  The  translator 
into  modern  Greek  has  adopted  the  same  method, 
putting  excc&ids  for  avexXid'tf,  &c.  The  French 
translator,  Olivetan,  has  avoided  the  false  trans- 
lation of  sitting  for  lying,  and  also  the  apparent 
awkwardness  of  a  literal  version.  In  the  passage 
from  Luke,  above  q^uoted,  he  says,  B  se  mit  a 
table ;  and  speaking  of  the  woman,  Laquelle 
ayant  connu  quHl  etoit  a  table.  In  the  miraculous 
increase  of  the  loaves  and  the  fishes  in  the  des- 
ert", he  thus  expresses  himself :  H  commanda 
aux  troupes  de  s^arranger  par  terre.  Diodati  has, 
in  the  first  of  these  passages,  adopted  the  same 
method  with  the  French  translator,  saying,  si  mise 
a  tavola  ;  and  ch'egli  era  a  tavola  ;  in  the  other, 
he  has  fallen  into  the  error  of  our  common  ver- 
sion, and  said  Jesu  commando  alle  turbe,^  che  si 
mettessero  a  sedere  in  terra.    Most  other  French 

3<  Matth.  XV.  35. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  41 

versions  have  taken  the  same  method  of  eluding 
the  difficulty.  But  all  the  late  English  versions 
I  have  seen,  follow  implicitly  the  common  trans- 
lation. 

§  8.  To  come  now  to  offices  and  judicatories  : 
it  must  be  acknowledged  that,  in  these,  it  is  not 
always  easy  to  say,  as  was  remarked  in  a  pre- 
ceding Dissertation  ^^  whether  the  resemblances  to, 
or  differences,  from,  offices  and  judicatories  of  our 
own,  ought  to  induce  us  to  retain  the  original 
term,  or  to  translate  it.  But  whatever  be  in  this, 
or  however  die  first  translators  ought  to  have 
been  determined  in  their  choice  between  these 
methods,  the  matter  is  not  equally  open  to  us  in 
this  late  age  as  it  was  to  them.  The  election 
made  by  our  predecessors,  in  this  department, 
has  established  an  use  which,  except  in  some  par- 
ticular cases,  it  would  be  dangerous  in  their  suc- 
cessors to  violate  ;  and  which,  therefore,  unless 
where  perspicuity  or  energy  requires  an  altera- 
tion, ought  to  be  followed.  For  example,  who 
could  deny,  that  the  Greek  terms,  ayysXos,  anoaxo- 
Aos,  Sia^oXog,  might  not  have  been  as  well  render- 
ed messenger,  missionary,  slanderer,  as  the  words 
^tsgevs,  vTtTfgerrfs,  avriSixos,  are  rendered  priest, 
*  minister,  adversary.  In  regard  to  the  import  of 
the  words,  there  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  a 
closer  correspondence  in  the  last  mentioned,  than 
in  the  first.     Besides,  as  the  first  are  themselves 

85  Diss.  II.  p.  I.  §  5. 


42  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

no  other  than  Greek  translations  of  the  Hebrew 
words  [DtJ^,  ni/C^,  "!i<70,  satan^  shaluch^  malach^ 
which  the  Seventy  have  not  judged  necessary  to 
retain  in  another  language,  and  in  this  judgment 
have  been  followed  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament ;  they  have  given  the  example  of 
translating,  rather  than  transferring,  these  appella- 
tives into  other  languages  ;  the  last  name,  satariy 
being  the  only  one  which  is  ever  retained  by 
them,  and  that  very  seldom. 

But  the  true  source  of  the  distinction  that  has 
been  made  in  this  respect  by  European  transla- 
tors, is  not  any  particular  propriety  in  the  dif- 
ferent cases,  but  the  example  of  the  old  Latin 
translator.  The  words  which  he  retained,  with 
such  an  alteration  in  the  orthography  as  adapted 
them  to  the  genius  of  the  tongue,  we  also  retain  ; 
and  the  words  which  he  translated,  we  translate. 
Because  he  said  angelus,  apostolus,  diabolus, 
which  are  not  properly  Latin  words,  we  say 
angel,  apostle,  devil,  not  originally  English.  Had 
he,  on  the  contrary,  used  the  terms  nuncius,  lega- 
tus,  cahimniator,  we  had  probably  substituted  for 
them,  messenger,  missionary,  slanderer,  or  some 
terms  equivalent.  For,  in  those  cases  wherein 
the  Latin  interpreter  has  not  scrupled  to  translate 
the  Greek  by  Latin  words,  neither  have  we  scru- 
pled to  render  them  by  English  words.  I  am, 
however,  far  from  affirming  that  the  interpreters  of 
the  Latin  church,  either  in  the  old  Italic,  ot  in  the 
present  Vulgate,  have  acted  from  caprice  in  their 
choice  ;  though  I  do  not  always  discover  reasons 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  43 

of  such  weight  for  the  distinctions  they  have 
made,  as  should  lead  us  implicitly  to  follow 
them. 

There  is  only  one  example  in  titles  of  this 
sort,  wherein  the  moderns  have  taken  the  freedom 
to  judge  differently.  The  Greek  nagaxXi^Tos,  in 
John's  Gospel,  is  always  retained  by  the  author 
of  the  Vulgate,  who  uses  paracletus,  but  has  not 
been  followed  by  later  translators.  Erasmus  has 
sometimes  adopted  this  word,  and  sometimes  said 
consolatory  and  is  followed  in  both,  by  the  trans- 
lator of  Zuric.  Castalio  says  confirmatory  and 
Beza  advocatus.  Most  modern  versions  into 
Italian,  French,  and  English,  have,  in  this  in- 
stance, followed  Erasmus,  in  the  import  they 
have  given  the  word,  in  preference  even  to  Be- 
za. And  of  these  our  common  version  is  one, 
using  the  word  comforter.  Nay,  some  French 
translators  from  the  Vulgate  have  deserted  that 
version,  rendering  the  word  either  consolateur  or 
avocat.  In  general,  I  would  pay  that  deference 
to  the  example  of  the  ancient  interpreters  as  to 
prefer  their  manner,  wherever  there  is  not,  from 
perspicuity,  energy,  or  the  general  scope  of  the 
discourse,  positive  reason  to  the  contrary.  Such 
reason,  I  think,  we  have  in  regard  to  the  title  last 
mentioned  ^^  As  to  the  term  Sia^oXos,  I  have 
already  considered  the  cases  in  which  it  is  not 
proper  to  render  it  deviP'^.  The  name  anoaxoXog 
is  so  much  appropriated  in  the  New  Testament, 
to  a  particular  class  of  extraordinary  ministers, 

56  See  the  note  on  John,  xiv.  16. 
'7  Diss.  VI.  Part  I.  §  2,  3,  4. 


44  PRELIMINARY  [d.  vm. 

that  there  are  very  few  cases,  and  none  that  I 
remember  in  the  Gospels,  where  either  per- 
spicuity or  energy  would  require  a  change  of 
the  term. 

§  9.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  name  ayyEXos^ 
in  regard  to  which  there  are  several  occurrences, 
where  the  import  of  the  sentiment  is,  if  not  lost, 
very  much  obscured,  because  the  word  in  the 
version  has  not  the  same  extent  of  signification 
with  that  in  the  original.  It  was  observed  be- 
fore ^^,  that  there  is  this  difference  between  the 
import  of  such  terms,  as  they  occur  in  their 
native  tongues,  whether  Hebrew  or  Greek,  and 
as  modernized  in  versions,  that,  in  the  former, 
they  always  retain  somewhat  of  their  primitive 
signification,  and  beside  indicating  a  particular 
being  or  class  of  beings,  they  are  of  the  nature 
of  appellatives,  and  mark  a  special  character, 
function,  or  note  of  distinction  in  such  beings.; 
whereas,  when  latinized  or  englished,  but  not 
translated  into  Latin  or  English,  they  answer  sole- 
ly the  first  of  those  uses,  and  approach  the  nature 
of  proper  names.  Now,  where  there  happens  to 
be  a  manifest  allusion  in  the  original,  to  the  primi- 
tive and  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  word  in  that 
language,  that  allusion  must  be  lost  in  a  transla- 
tion, where  the  word  is  properly  not  translated, 
and  where  there  is  nothing  in  the  sound  that  can 
suggest  the  allusion.  It  is  particularly  unfortunate, 
if  it  be  in  an  argument  ;  as  the  whole  will  be 
necessarily  involved  in  darkness. 

^  Diss.  VI.  Parti.  §  1.  *        ^ 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  45 

§  10.  I  SHALL  illustrate  the  preceding  observa- 
tions by  some  remarks  on  the  following  passage  ^^ 
4.  Being  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as 
he  hath  by  inheritance  obtained  a  more  excellent 
name  than  they :  5.  For  unto  which  of  the  angels 
said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee  ?  And  again,  I  will  be  to 
him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son. 
6.  And  again  when  he  bringeth  in  the  Jirst-begot- 
ten  into  the  world,  he  saith.  And  let  all  the  angels 
of  God  worship  him.  7.  And  of  the  angels  he 
saith.  Who  maketh  his  angels  spirits,  and  his  min- 
isters a  flame  of  fire.  8.  But  unto  the  Son  he 
saith.  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever. 
I  cannot  help  thinking  with  Grotius,  that  there  is 
here  a  comparison  of  the  dignity  of  the  different 
personages  mentioned,  from  the  consideration  of 
what  is  imported  in  their  respective  titles.  This 
is  at  best  but  obscurely  suggested  in  the  common 
version.  For  though  the  word  son  is  expressive 
of  a  natural  and  near  relation,  the  word  angel 
in  our  language  is  the  name  of  a  certain  order  of 
beings,  and  beside  that,  expresses  nothing  at  all. 
It  is  not,  like  the  original  appellation,  both  in 
Hebrew  and  in  Greek,  a  name  of  office.  Fur- 
ther, the  seventh  verse,  as  it  stands  with  us.  Who 
maketh  his  angels  spirits,  and  his  ministers  aflame 
of  fire,  is  unintelligible  ;  and  if  some  mystical 
sense  may  be  put  upon  it,  this  is  at  best  but  a 
matter  of  conjecture,  and  appears  quite  uncon- 
nected with  the  argument.      It  is  well  known  that 

»9  Ileb.  i.  4,  Lc. 
VOL.    II.  6 


46  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

the  word  Ttvsvfiara  rendered  spirits,  signifies  also 
winds.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  it  here,  is 
evident  from  the  passage  ^'^  whence  the  quotation 
is  taken.  For  the  Hebrew  nil  ruack,  is  of  the 
same  extent.  And  though  it  be  in  that  place,  for 
the  sake  of  uniformity,  rendered  the  same  way 
as  here,  nothing  can  be  more  manifest,  than  that 
the  Psalmist  is  celebrating-  the  wonders  of  the 
material  creation,  all  the  parts  of  which  execute, 
in  their  different  ways,  the  commands  of  the  Crea- 
tor. Our  translators  not  only  render  the  same 
Hebrew  M'ord  wind  in  the  third  verse,  and  spirits 
in  the  fourth,  but  in  this  last  evidently  start  aside 
from  the  subject.  Nothing,  on  the  contrary,  can 
be  better  connected  than  the  whole  passage  in 
the  true,  which  is  also  the  most  obvious,  inter- 
pretation, and  may  be  thus  expressed  :  Who  cov- 
er eth  himself  with  light  as  with  a  mantle,  ivho 
stretcheth  out  the  heavens  like  a  curtain  ;  ivho 
lay  eth  the  beams  of  his  chambers  in  the  waters  ; 
who  maketh  the  clouds  his  chatHot  ;  ivho  ivalketh 
on  the  ivings  of  the  wind  ;  ivho  maketh  ivinds  his 
messengers,  and  flaming  fire  his  ministers^^  ;  who 

^"  Psal.  civ.  4. 
■*!  Dr.  Lowth  (De  sacra  Poesi  Hebrasorum,  Prael.  viii.) 
though  he  retains  tlie  word  angelus,  understands  the  passage 
just  as  I  do,  making  Avinds  the  subject,  and  angels  a  metapho- 
rical attribute.  "  Faciens  ut  venti  sint  angeli  sui,  ut  ignis 
"  ardens  sit  sibi  ministrorum  loco."  He  adds  :  "  Describuntur 
"  elementa  in  exequendis  Dei  mandatis,  prompta  et^  expedita 
"  quasi  angeli,  aut  ministri  tabernaculo  deservientes."  Houbi- 
gant  to  the  same  purpose,  "  Facit  angelos  suos,  ventos,  et  min- 
"  istros  suos  ignem   rutilantem." 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  47 

hath  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earthy  that  it 
should  never  be  removed.  There  is  an  internal 
probability  of  the  justness  of  this  version,  arising 
from  the  perspicuous  and  close  connection  of  the 
parts,  and  an  improbability  iii  the  common  ver- 
sion, arising  from  their  obscurity  and  want  of  con- 
nection ;  verse  4.  Who  maketh  his  angels  spirits, 
his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire,  being  a  digression 
from  the  scope  of  the  context,  the  material  world, 
to  the  world  of  spirits. 

Now,  let  us  try,  in  the  passage  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  referred  to,  how  the  same  transla- 
tion of  the  words  Jtvsvfia  and  ayyeXog  by  wind 
and  messenger,  through  the  whole,  will  suit  the 
Apostle's  reasoning.  Speaking  of  our  Lord,  he 
says.  Being  as  far  superior  to  the  heavenly  mes- 
sengers, as  the  title  he  hath  inherited  is  more  ex- 
cellent than  theirs  ;  For  to  which  of  those  mes- 
sengers did  God  ever  say,  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  I 
"  have  to-day  begotten  thee  :"  Jtnd  again,  "  I  will 
"  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a 
"  Son  :"  Again,  when  he  introduceth  the  first-born 
into  the  world,  he  saith,  "  Let  all  God^s  messeng- 
"  ers  worship  him^  Whereas,  concerning  messeng- 
ers, he  saith,  "  Who  maketh  wi?ids  his  messengers, 
"  and  flaming  fire  his  mitiisters  :"  But  to  the  Son, 
"  Thy  throne,  O  God,  endureth  for  ever^  To  me 
it  is  plain,  first,  that  the  aim  of  his  reasoning  is 
to  show  the  superior  excellency  of  the  Messiah, 
from  the  superiority  of  his  title  of  Son,  given 
him  in  a  sense  peculiar  to  him  (and  which,  from 
analogy  to  the  constitution  of  the  universe,  should 
imply   of  the  same  nature   with   the  Father,)  to 


48  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

that  of  messenger^  which  does  not  differ  essentially 
from  servant.  Now  the  English  word  angel  does 
not  express  this.  It  is  a  name  for  those  celestial 
beings,  but  without  suggesting  their  function. 
Secondly,  that,  in  proof  of  the  inferiority  of  the 
title  messenger,  the  writer  urges,  that  it  is  some- 
times given  even  to  things  inanimate,  such  as 
storms  and  lightning. 

Every  reader  of  reflection  admits,  that  there 
runs,  through  the  whole  passage,  a  contrast  of  the 
things  spoken  concerning  the  Messiah,  to  the 
things  spoken  concerning  angels,  in  order  to  show 
the  supereminence  of  the  former  above  the  lat- 
ter. The  seventh  verse,  as  now  rendered,  per- 
fectly suits  this  idea,  and  completes  one  side  of 
the  contrast.  But  does  it  answer  this  purpose  in 
the  common  version  ?  Not  in  the  least  :  for,  will 
any  one  say,  that  it  derogates  from  the  highest 
dignity  to  be  called  a  spirit,  when  it  is  considered 
that  God  himself  is  so  denominated  ?  And  as  the 
term,  flaming  fire,  when  applied  to  intelligent  be- 
ings, must  be  metaphorical,  the  consideration  that, 
by  such  metaphors,  the  energy  and  omniscience 
of  the  Deity  are  sometimes  represented,  will,  in 
our  estimation,  serve  rather  to  enhance  than  to 
depress  the  character.  The  case  is  totally  dif- 
ferent, when  flaming  fire,  or  lightning,  in  the 
literal  sense,  is  made  the  subject  of  the  propo- 
sition, and  God's  messengers  the  predicate.  But 
it  may  be  asked.  Do  not  the  words  in  i\\h  Greek 
oppose  this  supposition,  inasmuch  as  tov?  ayys- 
Xovs   avTov  his  messengers   has   the   article,  and 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  49 

should  therefore  be  understood  as  the  subject, 
whereas  Ttvevfiara  having  no  article  must  be  the 
predicate  ;  but  let  it  be  remarked,  that  the  article 
is  found  only  in  the  translation  of  the  Seventy, 
which  is  copied  by  the  apostle.  In  the  Hebrew, 
neither  term  has  the  article  ;  the  subject  there- 
fore must  be  determined  by  the  scope  of  the 
place. 

§  11.  I  KNOW  that  it  has  been  objected  to  this 
interpretation,  that  tl)1  ruach,  though  used  in  the 
singular  for  ivind,  does  not  occur,  in  this  sense,  in 
the  plural,  except  when  joined  with  the  numeral 
adjective  four.  But  from  this,  though  it  were 
true,  we  can  conclude  nothing.  That  the  word  is 
found  in  this  meaning,  in  the  plural,  is  a  sufficient 
ground  for  interpreting  it  so,  when  the  connection 
requires  it.  Farther,  though  it  were  conclusive, 
it  is  not  true.  In  Jeremiah  ^^  we  find,  in  the  same 
passage,  both  nini")  V^li^  arbang  ruchoth,  four 
winds,  and  nini^lH  73  col  haruchoth,  all  the  winds, 
where  it  was  never  doubted,  that  both  expressions 
were  used  of  the  ivinds.  As  to  the  insinuation 
which  some  have  thrown  out  concerning  this  ex- 
planation, as  unfavourable  to  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  divinity,  it  can  be  accounted  for  only  from 
that  jealousy,  an  invariable  attendant  on  the  po- 
lemic spirit,  which  still  continues  too  much  to 
infect  and  dishonour  theological  inquiries.  This 
jealousy,  however,  appears  so  much  misplaced 
here,  that  the  above  interpretation  is  manifestly 

^2  Jer.  xlix.  36. 


50  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

more  favourable  to  the  common  doctrine  than 
the  other.  I  say  not  this  to  recommend  it  to 
any  party,  knowing  that,  in  these  matters,  we 
ought  all  to  be  determined  by  the  impartial  prin- 
ciples of  sound  criticism,  and  not  by  our  own  pre- 
possessions. 

§  12.  But  to  return  :  a  second  case,  wherein  it 
is  better  to  employ  the  general  word  messenger, 
is,  when  it  is  not  clear,  from  the  context,  whether 
the  sacred  penmen  meant  a  celestial,  or  a  terres- 
trial, being.  In  such  cases,  it  is  always  best  to 
render  the  term,  so  as  that  the  version  mav  admit 
the  same  latitude  of  interpretation  with  the  origi- 
nal ;  and  this  can  be  effected  only  by  using  the 
general  term.  For  this  reason,  in  the  following 
expressions,  '^ouzlves  sXa^sTS  tov  vofiov  eig  Siaxa^^as 
ayysXav^^,  and  bLaxayu?  §l  ayysXav  £v  ;^ftpt  fis- 
ciiTov^\  it  would  have  been  better  to  translate 
ayyalav  messengers,  as  it  is  not  certain  whether 
such  extraordinary  ministers  as  Moses  and  Joshua, 
and  the  succeeding  Prophets,  be  meant,  or  any  of 
the  heavenly  host.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
that  passage,  'ocpsiXsi  ^7^  yvvrf  s^ovaiav  s/eiv  btzl  tt^j 
x£(pa?,rfs,  Sia  xovg  ayytXovg'^^ ,  it  being  very  doubt- 
ful whether  the  word,  in  this  place,  denotes  angels 
or  men. 

§  13.  A  TmRD  case,  wherein  (I  do  not  say  it 
must,  but)  it  may,  properly  be  rendered  ^messen- 
gers, is  when,  though  it  evidently  refers  to  superior 

**  Acts,  vii.  53.         ■**  Gal.  iii.  19.         ^^  \  Cor.  xi.  10. 


r.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  51 

beings,  it  is  joined  with  some  word  or  epithet, 
which  sufficiently  marks  the  reference,  as  ayyelos 
Kvgiov,  a  messenger  of  the  Lord^  ol  ayyiXoi  tov 
ovgavav,  the  heavenly  messengers,  ol  dyioL  ayysloi, 
the  holy  messengers ;  for,  with  the  addition  of  the 
epithet,  the  English  is  just  as  explicit  as  the  Greek. 
Not  but  that  such  epithets  may  in  some  sense  be 
applied  to  men  also ;  but  it  is  customary  with  the 
sacred  writers  thus  to  distinguish  the  inhabitants 
of  heaven.  In  this  case,  however,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, that  either  way  of  translating  is  good. 
There  is  one  advantage  in  sometimes  adopting 
this  manner,  that  it  accustoms  us  to  the  word 
messenger  in  this  application,  and  may  conse- 
quently assist  the  unlearned  in  applying  it  in 
doubtful  cases.  In  some  cases,  not  doubtful,  to 
add  the  word  heavenly  in  the  version,  is  no  inter- 
polation, for  the  single  word  ayyslos  often  in- 
cludes it.  Thus,  though  the  word  yXaaaa  origin- 
ally means  no  more  than  tongue,  it  is  frequently 
employed  to  denote  an  unknown  or  foreign 
tongue  ^^ 


§  14.  A  FOURTH  case,  wherein  the  general  term 
is  proper,  is  when  the  word  is  applied  to  a  human 
being.  This  rule,  however,  admits  some  excep- 
tions, soon  to  be  taken  notice  of.  Our  translators 
have  rightl}^  rendered  it  messenger,  in  the  instances 
which  fall    under   this    description    noted   in  the 

46  Diss.  XII.  P.  IV.  §  9. 


52  PRELIMINARY  [d.  vni. 

margin  ^^,  wherein  they  are  not  only  human  beings 
that  are  meant,  but  the  message  is  from  men.^ 

§  15.  I  SAID,  that  there  are  some  exceptions 
from  this  rule.  The  first  is,  when  not  only  the 
message  is  from  God,  but  when  it  appears  to  be 
the  view  of  the  writer  to  show  the  dignity  of  the 
mission,  from  the  title  given  to  the  missionary,  as 
being  a  title  which  he  has  in  common  with  supe- 
rior natures  :  in  such  cases,  it  is  better  to  preserve 
in  the  version  the  term  angel,  without  which  the 
allusion  is  lost,  and  by  consequence  justice  is  not 
done  to  the  argument.  For  this  reason  the  word 
angel  ought  to  be  retained  in  the  noted  passage  of 
the  Gospels  concerning  John  the  Baptist  ^  :  What 
went  ye  to  see  ?  A  Prophet  ?  Yea,  I  tell  you, 
and  something  superior  to  a  Prophet ;  for  this  is 
he  concerning  whom  it  is  written,  "  Behold  I  send 
"  mine  angel  before  thee,  tcho  shall  prepare  thy 
"  tvay.''''  There  is,  manifestly,  couched  here  a  com- 
parison between  the  two  titles  prophet  and  angel, 
with  a  view  to  raise  the  latter.  Now,  to  this  end 
the  common  English  word  messenger  is  not 
adapted,  as  it  does  not  convey  to  us  the  idea  of 
greater  dignity  than  that  of  a  Prophet,  or  even 
of  so  great.  My  argument  here  may  be  thought 
not  quite  consistent  with  what  I  urged  in  my  first 
remark  on  this  word.  But  the  two  cases  are 
rather  opposite  than  similar.  The  allusion  was 
there  to  the   ordinary  signification  of  the  term ; 

<7  Luke,  vii.  24.  ix.  52.  James,  ii.  25.  ^  Matth.  xi.  9,  10. 


p.  in.]  DISSERTATIONS.  68 

the  allusion  is  here  not  to  the  signification,  but  to 
the  common  application  of  it,  to  beings  of  a  supe- 
rior order.  The  intention  was  there,  compara- 
tively, to  depress  the  character,  the  intention  here 
is  to  exalt  it 

§  16.  Another  case,  in  which  the  word  angel 
ought  to  be  retained,  though  used  of  man,  is  when 
there  would  arise  either  obscurity  or  ambiguity 
from  the  construction,  if  the  word  messenger 
should  be  employed.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  that 
the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  mentioned  in 
the  Apocalypse  ^^,  are  human  creatures  ;  but  the 
term  messenger* \yo\Ad  render  the  expression  am- 
biguous or  rather  improper.  The  messenger  of 
societies  (in  like  manner  as  of  individuals,)  is  one 
sent  by  them,  not  to  them.  In  this,  and  some 
other  instances,  the  Greek  ayysXos  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  corresponding  in  extent  of  signification 
to  the  Hebrew  "IKVj  malach,  which  often  denotes 
a  minister^  or  servant  employed  in  any  charge  of 
importance  and  dignity,  though  not  a  message.  It 
would,  therefore,  be  no  deviation  from  what  is  in- 
cluded in  the  Hellenistic  sense  of  the  word,  if, 
through  the  whole  of  that  passage,  it  were  ren- 
dered president. 

§  17.  In  what  concerns  civil  offices,  our  trans- 
lators have,  very  properly,  retained  some  names 
to  which  we  have  none  entirely  equivalent.     Of 

^®  Rev.  i.  20.  ii.  1.8.  12,  10.  iii.  1.  7.  14. 
vol-   II.  7 


54  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

this  number  is  the  name  tetrarch,  which  admits 
no  explanation  but  by  a  periphrcgsis.  Centurion 
and  publican  are  of  the  same  kind.  The  word 
legion,  though  not  a  name  of  office,  being  the 
name  of  a  military  division,  to  which  we  have 
not  any  exactly  corresponding,  may  be  ranked  in 
the  same  class.  The  three  words  last  specified 
are  neither  Hebrew  nor  Greek,  but  Latin ;  and 
as  they  are  the  names  of  things  familiar  only  to 
the  Latins,  they  are  best  expressed  by  those 
names  of  Latin  derivation  employed  by  our  trans- 
lators. Two  of  them  occur  in  the  Latin  form  in 
the  New  Testament,  Xsyicav,  and  Tcevivgiav,  though 
for  the  latter  word  the  Greek  ^ exajovjag^os  is 
oftener  used. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  observe,  in  regard  to 
such  Latin  appellatives,  that  from  the  connection 
which  has  subsisted  between  all  European  coun- 
tries and  the  Romans,  and  from  the  general  ac- 
quaintance which  the  Western  nations  have  long 
had  with  the  ancient  Roman  usages,  history,  and 
literature  ;  their  names  of  offices,  &c.  are  natural- 
ized in  most  modern  languages,  particularly  in 
English.  This  makes  the  adoption  of  the  Latin 
name  for  an  office,  or  any  other  thing  which  the 
Jews  had  solely  from  the  Romans,  peculiarly 
pertinent.  The  remark  now  made  holds,  especially 
when  the  persons  spoken  of  were  either  Romans, 
or  the  servants  of  Rome.  If,  therefore,  after  the 
Vulgate,  we  had  rendered ;^fAiap;^os  tribune ^avO'vita- 
Tos  proco7isul,  and  perhaps  cinsiga  cohort,  the  ex- 
pression, without  losing  any  thing,  in  perspicuity, 
to  those  of  an  inferior  class  ;  would  have  been,  to 


T,  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  65 

the  learned  reader,  more   significant  than  chief- 
captain,  deputy,  band. 

The  word  rfysfxav  also,  though  sometimes  a 
general  term,  denoting  governor  or  president ; 
yet,  as  applied  to  Pilate,  is  known  to  import  no 
more  than  procurator.  Properly  there  was  but 
one  president  in  Syria,  of  which  Judea  was  a  part. 
He  who  had  the  superintendency  of  this  part  was 
styled  imperatoris  procurator.  For  this  we  have 
the  authority  of  Tacitus  the  Roman  annalist,  and 
of  Philo  the  Alexandrian  Jew.  And  though  the 
author  of  the  Vulgate  has  commonly  used  the 
term  prceses  for  'tfysfiav ;  yet,  in  translating 
Luke  ^^  he  has  rendered  '-qys^ovevovTos  JJovxiov 
IliXaxov  T7/S  lovdaias,  procurante  Pontio  Pilato 
JudtEam.  To  those  who  know  a  little  of  the 
language,  or  even  of  the  history,  of  ancient  Rome, 
the  Latin  names,  in  many  cases,  are  much  more 
definite  in  their  signification,  than  the  words  by 
which  they  are  commonly  rendered,  and,  being 
already  familiar  in  our  language,  are  not,  even 
to  the  vulgar,  more  obscure  than  names  originally 
English,  relating  to  things  wherewith  they  are 
little  acquainted.  For  a  similar  reason,  I  have 
also  retained  the  name  pmtorium,  which,  though  a 
Latin  word,  has  been  adopted  by  the  sacred 
writers,  and  to  which  neither  common-hall  nor 
judgment-hall  entirely  answers.  That  the  Evan- 
gelists, who  wrote  in  Greek,  a  more  copious 
language,  found  themselves  compelled  to  borrow 
from  the  Latin,  the  name  of  what  belonged  to  the 

^  Luke,  iii.  1. 


56  PRELIMINARY  [d.  viii. 

office  of  a  Roman  magistrate,  is  to  their  translat- 
ors a  sufficient  authority  for  ado{)ting  the  same 
method. 

§  18.  I  SHALL  conclude  this  JDissertation  with 
observing,  that  there  are  two  judicatories  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament,'  one  Jewish,  the 
other  Grecian,  the  distinguishing  names  of  which 
may.  not|  without  energy,  be  preserved  in  a  trans- 
lation. Though  the  noun  awsSgiov  is  Greek,  and 
susceptible  of  the  general  interpretation  council 
or  senate ;  yet,  as  it  is  commonly  in  the  Gospels 
and  Acts  appropriated  to  that  celebrated  court  of 
senators  or  elders  accustomed  to  assemble  at  Je- 
rusalem, and  from  the  Greek  name,  called  sanhe- 
drim, which  was  at  once  their  national  senate  and 
supreme  judicatory;  and,  as  it  appears  not,  in 
those  books,  to  have  been  ever  applied  to  any 
other  particular  assembly,  though  sometimes  to 
such  in  general  as  were  vested  with  the  highest 
authority ;  I  have  thought  it  reasonable  to  retain 
the  word  sanhedrim,  in  every  case  where  there 
could  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  the  court  spoken  of. 
The  name  has  been  long  naturalized  in  the  lan- 
guage ;  and,  as  it  is  more  confined  in  its  applica- 
tion than  any  common  term,  it  is  so  much  the 
more  definite  and  energetic.  The  other  is  the 
famous  Athenian  court  called  the  Areopagus,  and 
mentioned  in  the  Acts";  which,  as  it  was  in 
several  respects  peculiar  in  its  constitution,  ought 
to  be  distinguished  in  -a  version,  as  it  is  in  the 

*^  Acts,  xvii.  19. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  57 

original,  by  its  proper  name.  To  render  it  Mars- 
hill  from  etymology,  without  regard  to  use,  would 
entirely  mislead  the  unlearned,  who  could  never 
imagine  that  the  historian  spoke  of  bringing  the 
Apostle  before  a  court,  but  would  suppose  that  he 
only  informed  us  that  they  brought  him  up  to  an 
eminence  in  the  city,  from  wbich  he  discoursed  to 
the  people.  This  is  in  part  effected  by  the  com- 
mon version  ;  for,  though  in  verse  19,  it  is  said. 
They  brought  Paul  to  Areopagus,  it  is  added  in 
verse  22,  Then  Paul  stood  in  the  midst  of  Mars- 
hill,  and  said.  This  leads  one  to  think  that  these 
were  two  nam^s  for  the  same  hill.  The  Areopa- 
gus with  the  article  is  the  proper  version  in  both 
places. 


^1 


mmtvintion  tUe  J^tntti, 


Inquiry  whether  certain  ^fames  which  have  been  adopted  into 
most  Translations  of  Scripture  in  the  West,  coincide  in  Mean- 
ing with  the  original  Terms  from  which  they  are  derived,  and 
of.  xvhich  they  are  used  as  the  Version. 

It  was  observed  in  a  former  Dissertations  as  one 
cause  of  difficulty  in  the  examination  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  before  we  begin  to  study  them 
critically,  we  have  been  accustomed  to  read  them 
in  a  translation,  whence  we  have  acquired  a  habit 
of  considering  several  ancient  and  Oriental  terms 
as  equivalent  to  certain  words,  in  modern  use, 
in  our  own  language,  by  which  they  have  been 
commonly  rendered.  What  makes  the  difficulty 
the  greater  is,  that  when  we  become  acquainted 
with  other  versions  beside  that  into  our  mother- 
tongue,  these,  instead  of  correcting,  serve  but  to 
confirm  the  prejudice.  For,  in  these  translations, 
we  find  the  same  original  words  rendered  by 
words  which  we  know  to  correspond  exactly  in 
those  tongues,  to  the  terms  employed  in  the  Eng- 
lish translation.  In  order  to  set  this  observation 
in  the  strongest  light,  it  will  be  necessary  to  trace 

1  Diss.  II.  Part  III.  §  6. 


D.ix.]  DISSERTATIONS.  59 

the  origin  of  some  terms  which  have  become 
technical  among  ecclesiastical  writers,  pointing 
out  the  changes  in  meaning  which  they  have  un- 
dergone. When  alterations  are  produced  gradu- 
ally, they  escape  the  notice  of  the  generality  of 
people,  and  sometimes  even  of  the  more  discern- 
ing. For,  a  term  once  universally  understood 
to  be  equivalent  to  an  original  term,  whose  place 
it  occupies  in  the  translation,  will  naturally  be 
supposed  still  equivalent,  by  those  who  do  not 
attend  to  the  variations  in  the  meanings  of  words, 
which  a  tract  of  time  often  insensibly  produces. 
Sometimes  etymology  contributes  to  favour  the 
deception. 

How  few  are  there,  even  among  the  readers  of 
the  original,  who  entertain  a  suspicion  that  the 
words  mystery,  blasphemy,  schism,  heresy,  do  not 
convey  to  moderns  precisely  those  ideas  which 
the  Greek  words  (being  the  same  except  in  ter- 
mination) (xvGT-qgLov,  (SXaotpri^ia,,  (i)^i6^a,  aigsais, 
in  the  New  Testament,  conveyed  to  Christians  in 
the  times  of  the  Apostles  ?  Yet,  there  is  not 
such  a  correspondence  in  meaning  between  them, 
as  is  commonly  supposed,  I  intend,  in  the  pre- 
sent Dissertation,  to  put  beyond  a  doubt.  That 
there  is  a  real  difference,  in  regard  to  some  of 
those  words,  is,  I  think,  generally  allowed  by  men 
of  letters  ;  but  as  all  are  not  agreed  in  regard 
to  the  precise  difference  between  the  one  and 
the  other,  I  shall  here  examine,  briefly,  the  import 
of  the  original  terms,  in  the  order  above  men- 
tioned, that  we  may  be  qualified  to  judge  how  far 


60  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

they  are  rightly  rendered  by  the  words  supposed 
to  correspond  to  them,  and  that  yye  may  not  be 
misled,  by  the  resemblance  of  sound,  to  deter- 
mine concerning  the  sameness  of  signification. 


PART  I. 


OF    MYSTERY. 


The   Greek   word  fivairfgiov  occurs  frequently 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  uniformly  rendered, 
in  the  English  translation,  mystery.     We  all  know 
that    by  the    most    current   use   of   the   English 
word  mystery^  (as  well  as  of  the  Latin  ecclesias- 
tic word  mysterium,  and  the  corresponding  terms 
in  modern  languages,)  is  denoted  some  doctrine 
to    human    reason    incomprehensible  ;    in    other 
words,  such  a  doctrine  as  exhibits  difficultieSj  and 
even  apparent  contradictions,    which   we    cannot 
solve    or    explain.      Another   use   of    the   word, 
which,  though  not  so  universal  at  present,  is  often 
to  be  met  with  in  ecclesiastical  writers  of  former 
ages,  and  in  foreign  writers  of  the  present  age,  is 
to  signify  some  religious  ceremony  or  rite,  espec- 
ially  those   now    denominated    sacraments.       In 
the  communion-office  of  the  church   of  Ejigland, 
the   elements,  after  consecration,   are  sometimes 
termed  holy  mysteries.    But  this  use  seems  not 
now    to    be    common    among    protestants,    less 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  61 

perhaps  in  this  country  than  in  any  other.  John- 
son has  not  so  much  as  mentioned  it  in  his  Dic- 
tionary. Indeed,  in  the  fourth,  and  some  succeed- 
ing, centuries,  the  word  ^vazr^giov  was  so  much 
in  vogue  with  the  Greek  fathers,  and  mysterium 
or  sacramentum,  as  it  was  often  rendered,  with  the 
Latin,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  say  in  what 
meaning  they  used  the  word  ;  nay,  whether  or  not 
they  affixed  any  meaning  to  them  at  all.  In  every 
thing  that  related  to  religion,  there  were  found 
mysteries  and  sacraments,  in  doctrines  and  pre- 
cepts, in  ordinances  and  petitions  :  they  could 
even  discover  numbers  of  them  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  Nay,  so  late  as  Father  Possevini,  this 
unmeaning  application  of  these  terms  has  prevail- 
ed in  some  places.  That  Jesuit  is  cited  with 
approbation  by  Walton,  in  the  prolegomena  to 
his  Polyglot,  for  saying,  "  Tot  esse  Hebraica  in 
"  Scriptura  sacramenta,  quot  literae  ;  tot  mysteria, 
"  quot  puncta  ;  tot  arcana,  quot  apices,"  a  sen- 
tence, I  acknowledge,  as  unintelligible  to  me  as 
Father  Simon  owns  it  was  to  him.  But  passing 
this  indefinite  use,  of  which  we  know  not  what 
to  make,  the  two  significations  I  have  mention- 
ed, are  sufficientl}'^  known  to  theologians,  and  con- 
tinue, though  not  equally,  still  in  use  with  modern 
writers. 

§  2.  When  we  come  to  examine  the  scriptures 
critically,  and  make  them  serve  for  tJieir  own 
interpreters,  which  is  the  surest  way  of  attaining 
the  true  knowledge  of  them,  we  shall  find,  if  I 
mistake  not,  that  both  these  senses  are  unsup- 

VOL.    II.  8 


62  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

ported  by  the  usage  of  the  inspired  penmen. 
After  the  most  careful  examination  of  all  the  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  Greek 
word  occurs,  and  after  consulting  the  use  made  of 
the  term,  by  the  ancient  Greek  interpreters  of  the 
Old,  and  borrowing  aid  from  the  practice  of  the 
Hellenist  Jews,  in  the  writings  called  Apocrypha, 
.  I  can  only  find  two  senses,  nearly  related  to  each 
other,  which  tjan  strictly  be  called  scriptural. 
The  first,  and  what  I  may  call  the  leading  sense 
of  the  word,  is  arcamim,  a  secret,  any  thing  not 
disclosed,  not  published  to  the  world,  though  per- 
haps communicated  to  a  select  number. 

§  3.  Now  let  it  be  observed,  that  this  is  totally 
different  from  the  current  sense  of  the  English 
word  mystery^  something  incomprehensible.  In 
the  former  acceptation,  a  thing  was  no  longer  a 
mystery  than  whilst  it  remained  unrevealed  ;  in 
the  latter,  a  thing  is  equally  a  mystery  after  the 
revelation  as  before.  To  the  former  we  apply, 
properly,  the  epithet  tmknotvn,  to  the  latter  ^ve 
may,  in  a  great  measure,  apply  the  term  unknow- 
able. Thus,  the  proposition  that  God  would  call 
the  Gentiles,  and  receive  them  into  his  church, 
was  as  intelligible,  or,  if  you  lil^  the  term  bet- 
ter, comprehensible,  as  that  he  once  had  called 
the  descendants  of  the  Patriarchs,  or  as  any  plain 
proposition,  or  historical  fact.  Yet,  whilst  undis- 
covered, or,  at  least  veiled  under  figures  and  types, 
it  remained,  in  the  scriptural  idiom,  a'^  mystery^ 
liaving  been  hidden  from  ages  and  generations. 
But,  after  it  had  pleased  God  to  reveal  this   his 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  6$ 

gracious  purpose  to  the  Apostles,  by  his  Spirit, 
it  was  a  mystery  no  longer. 

The  Greek  words,  anoxaXvyjia  and  fivazr^giov, 
stand  in  the  same  relation  to  each  other,  that 
the  English  words  discovery  an  J  secret  do.  Mva- 
TTfgiov  anoxaXvcpd-sv  is  a  secret  discovery,  and  con- 
sequently a  secret  no  longer.  The  discovery  is 
the  extinction  of  the  secret  as  such.  These 
words  accordingly,  or  words  equivalent,  as  [xvGTTf- 
giov  yvogiad'sv,  ^avsga&ev,  are  often  brought  to- 
gether by  the  Apostles,  to  show  that  what  were 
once  the  secret  purposes  and  counsels  of  God,  had 
been  imparted^to  them,  to  be  by  them  promul- 
gated to  all  the  world.  Thus,  they  invited  the 
grateful  attention  of  all,  to  what  was  so  distin- 
guished a  favour  on  the  part  of  heaven,  and  must 
be  of  such  unspeakable  importance  to  the  apostate 
race  of  Adam.  The  terms,  communication,  reve- 
lation, manifestation,  plainly  show  the  import  of 
the  term  (xvarr^giov,  to  which  they  are  applied. 
As  this,  indeed,  seems  to  be  a  point  now  universal- 
ly acknowledged  by  the  learned,  I  shall  only  refer 
the  judicious  reader,  for  further  proof  of  it  from 
the  New  Testament,  to  the  passages  quoted  in  the 
margin  ^ ;  in  all  which,  he  will  plainly  perceive, 
that  the  Apostle  treats  of  something  which  had 
been  concealed  for  ages  (and  for  that  reason  called 
fivazr^giov,)  but  was  then  openly  revealed ;  and 
not  of  any  thing,  in  its  own  nature,  dark  and  in- 
conceivable. 


»  Rom.  xvi.  25,  26.     1  Cor.  ii.  7,  8,  9, 10.   Eph.  1.  9.  Hi.  3.  5, 
6.  9.  vi.  19.    Col.  i.  26,  27. 


64  PRELIMINARY  [d.    ix. 

§  4.  If,  in  addition  to  the  evidence  arising  from 
so  many  direct  and  clear  passages*  in  the  writings 
of  Paul,  it  should  be  thought  necessary  to  recur 
to  the  usage  of  the  Seventy,  we  find  that,  in  the 
Prophet  Daniel^  the  word  fivaTtfgiov  occurs  not 
fewer  than  nine  times,  answering  always  to  the 
Chaldaic  NH  raza,  res  arcana,  and  used  in  rela- 
tion to  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream,  which  was  be- 
come a  secret,  even  to  the  dreamer  himself,  as  he 
had  forgot  it.  The  word  there  is  uniformly  ren- 
dered in  the  common  version  secret ;  and  it  de- 
serves to  be  remarked  that,  in  those  verses,  it  is 
found  connected  with  the  verbs  yvagila,  (paTita, 
and  anoxaXvTnai ;  in  a  way  exactly  similar  to  the 
usage  of  the  New  Testament  above  observed.  It 
occurs  in  no  other  place  of  that  version,  but  one  in 
Isaiah,  of  very  doubtful  import.  In  the  apocry- 
phal writings  (which,  in  matters  of  criticism  on 
the  Hellenistic  idiom,  are  of  good  authority,)  the 
word  (ivdTi^giov  frequently  occurs  in  the  same 
sense,  and  is  used  in  reference  to  human  secrets, 
as  well  as  to  divine.  Na}^  the  word  is  not,  even 
in  the  New  Testament,  confined  to  divine  secrets. 
It  expresses  sometimes  those  of  a  different,  and 
even  contrary,  nature.  Thus,  the  Apostle,  speak- 
ing of  the  antichristian  spirit,  says.  The  mysteri/  of 
iniquity  doth  already  work  *.  The  spirit  of  anti- 
christ hath  begun  to  operate ;  but  the  operation 
is  latent  and  unperceived.  The  Gospel  of  Christ 
is  a  blessing,  the  spirit  of  antichrist  a  curse.     Both 

3  Dao.  ii.  18,  19.  27,  28,  29,  30.  47.  iv.  9. 
*  2  Thess.  u.  7. 


^ 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  65 

are  equally  denominated  mystery,  or  secret,  whilst 
they  remain  concealed. 

§  5.  I  SHALL  be  much  misunderstood,  if  any 
one  infer,  from  what  has  been  now  advanced,  that 
I  mean  to  signify,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  doc- 
trines of  religion  which  is  not,  on  all  sides,  per- 
fectly comprehensible  to  us,  or  nothing  from 
which  difficulties  may  be  raised,  that  we  are  not 
able  to  give  a  satisfactory  solution  of.  On  the 
contrary,  I  am  fully  convinced,  that  in  all  sciences, 
particularly  natural  theology,  as  well  as  in  revela- 
tion, there  ar(^  many  truths  of  this  kind,  whose 
evidence  such  objections  are  not  regarded  by  a 
judicious  person,  as  of  force  sufficient  to  invali- 
date. For  example,  the  divine  omniscience  is  a 
tenet  of  natural  religion.  This  manifestly  implies 
God's  foreknowledge  of  all  future  events.  Yet, 
to  reconcile  the  divine  prescience  with  the  free- 
dom, and  even  the  contingency,  and  consequently, 
with  the  good  or  ill  desert  of  human  actions,  is 
what  rhave  never  yet  seen  atchieved  by  any,  and 
indeed  despair  of  seeing.  That  there  are  such 
difficulties  also  in  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  it 
would,  in  my  opinion,  be  very  absurd  to  deny. 
But  the  present  inquiry  does  not  affect  that  mat- 
ter in  the  least.  This  inquiry  is  critical,  and  con- 
cerns solely  the  scriptural  acceptation  of  the 
word  fivaTTjQLov,  which  I  have  shown  to  relate 
merely  to  the  secrecy  for  some  time  observed  with 
regard  to  any  doctrine,  whether  mysterious,  in  the 
modern  acceptation  of  the  word,  or  not 


66  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

§  6.    The   foregoing    observations    will   throw 
some  light  on  what  Paul  says  of  the  nature  of  the 
office  with  which  he  was  vested :  Let  a  man  so 
account  of  us,  as  of  the  ministers  of  Christ,  and 
steivards  of  the   mysteries   of  God  ^   oixovofiovs 
fivGTTfgiav  0£ov,  dispensers  to  mankind  of  the  gra- 
cious purposes   of  heaven,  heretofore  concealed, 
and  therefore  denominated  secrets.     Nor  can  any 
thing  be  more  conformable  than  this  interpreta- 
tion, both  to  the  instructions  given  to  the  Apos- 
tles, during  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  to  the  com- 
mission they   received  from  him.     In  regard  to 
the  former,  he  tells  them.  To  you  it  is  given  to 
know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  no 
secret,  relating  to  this  subject,  is  withheld  from  you ; 
hut  to  them  it  is  not  given  ^ ;  that  is,  not  yet  given. 
For  these  very  Apostles,  when  commissioned  to 
preach,  were  not  only  empowered,  but  command- 
ed, to  disclose  to  all  the  world  ^,  the  whole  myste- 
ry of  God,  his  secret  counsels  in  regard  to  man^s 
salvation.     And  that  they  might  not  imagine  that 
the    private    informations,   received    from    their 
Master,  had  never  been  intended  for  the  public 
ear,  he  gave  them  this  express  injunction,  TVhat  I 
tell  you  in  darkness,  that  speak  ye  in  light.     And 
what  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  that  preach  ye  upon  the 
housetops.      He    assigns  the    reason,   the    divine 
decree;  a  topic  to    which  he  oftener  than  once 
recurs.     There  is  nothing  covered  that  shall  not 
be  revealed,  and  hid  that  shall  not  be  known  ®. 

5  1  Cor.  iv.  1.  ^  Matth.  xiii.  41. 

T  Matth.  xxviii.  19.  Mark,  xvi.  15.  «  Matth.  x.  26,  27. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  67 

Again  :  There  is  nothing  hid,  tvhich  shall  not  be 
manifested ;  neither  was  any  thing  kept  secret,  but 
that  it  should  come  abroad^.  This  may  serve  to 
explain  to  us  the  import  of  thes^  phrases  which 
occur  in  the  Epistles,  as  expressing  the  whole 
Christian  institution,  the  mystery  of  the  gospel,  the 
mystery  of  the  faith,  the  mystery  of  God,  and  the 
mystery  of  Christ ;  mystery,  in  the  singular  num- 
ber, not  mysteries,  in  the  plural,  w  hicli  would  have 
been  more  conformable  to  the  modern  import  of 
the  word,  as  relating  to  the  incomprehensibility 
of  the  different  articles  of  doctrine.  But  the 
.whole  of  the  gospel,  taken  together,  is  denomi- 
nated the  mystery,  the  grand  secret,  in  reference 
to  the  silence  or  concealment  under  which  it  was 
formerly  kept ;  as,  in  like  manner,  it  is  stjled  the 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  reference  to  the  pub- 
licaition  afterwards  enjoined. 

§  7.  I  SIGNIFIED,  before,  that  there  was  another 
meaning  which  the  term  iivaiiigLov  sometimes 
bears  in  the  New  Testament.  But  it  is  so  nearly 
related  to,  if  not  coincident  with,  the  former,  that 
I  am  doubtful  whether  I  can  call  it  other  than  a 
particular  application  of  the  same  meaning.  How- 
ever, if  the  thing  be  understood,  it  is  not  material 
which  of  the  two  ways  we  denominate  it.  The 
word  is  sometimes  employed  to  denote  the  figura- 
tive sense,  as  distinguished  from  the  literal,  which 
is  conveyed  under  any  fable,  parable,  allegory, 
symbolical  action,  representation,  dream,  or  vision. 

8  Mark,  iv.  22. 


68  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

It  is  plain  that,  in  this  case,  the  term  nvaxgiov  is 
used  comparatively  ;  for,  however  clear  the 
meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed  in  the  apologue, 
or  parable,  may  be  to  the  intelligent,  it  is  ob- 
scure, compared  with  the  literal  sense,  which,  to 
the  unintelligent,  pr^fes  a  kind  of  veil.  The  one 
is,  as  it  were,  open  to  the  senses ;  the  other  re- 
quires penetration  and  reflection.  Perhaps  there 
■was  some  allusion  to  this  import  of  the  term, 
when  our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples,  To  you  it 
is  given  to  know  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of 
God ;  but  to  them  that  are  without,  all  these 
things  are  done  in  parables  ^^.  The  Apostles 
were  let  into  the  secret,  and  got  the  spiritual 
sense  of  the  similitude,  whilst  the  multitude 
amused  themselves  with  the  letter,  and  searched 
no  further. 

In  this  sense,  fiv(JTT}gtov  is  used  in  these  words  : 
The  mystery  of  the  seven  stars  which  thou  sawest 
in  my  right  hand,  and  the  seven  golden  candle- 
sticks. The  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of  the 
seven  churches,  and  the  seven  candlesticks  are  the 
seven  churches  ^^  Again  in  the  same  book :  / 
tvill  tell  thee  the  mystery  of  the  ivoman,  and  of 
the  beast  that  carrieth  her,  &c.  ^^.  There  is  only 
one  other  passage,  to  which  this  meaning  of  the 
word  is  adapted,  and  on  which  I  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  remark  afterwards  ^^  lliis  is  a  great 
mystery,  but  I  speak  concerning  Christ  and  the 
charch^'^.     Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  this  inter- 

'0  Mark,  iv.  H.  "  Rev.  i.  20.  ^^  Rev.  xvii.  7. 

"  Diss.  X.  Part  III.  §  9.  "  Epb.  v.  32. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  69 

pretation  of  the  word  mystery  here,  that  the  Apos- 
tle .  alluded  not  to  any  fiction,  but  to  an  historical 
fact,  the  formation  of  Eve  out  of  the  body  of 
Adam  her  husband.  For,  though  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity that  the  story  which  supplies  us  with  the 
body  of  the  parable  or  allegory  (if  I  may  so  ex- 
press myself,)  be  literally  true ;  there  is,  on  the 
other  hand,  no  necessity  that  it  be  false.  Pas- 
sages of  true  history  are  sometimes  allegorized 
by  the  sacred  penmen.  Witness  the  story  of 
Abraham  and  his  two  sons,  Isaac  by  his  wife  Sa- 
rah, and  Ishmael  by  his  bond-woman  Hagar,  of 
which  the  Aposjtle  has  made  an  allegory  for  repre- 
senting the  comparative  natures  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  and  the  Christian  ^^. 

§  8.  As  to  the  passage  quoted  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  word 
livaxrigLov  is  there  rendered  in  the  Vulgate,  sacra- 
mentum.  Although  this  Latin  word  was  long 
used  very  indefinitely,  by  ecclesiastical  writers, 
it  came,  at  length,  with  the  more  judicious,  to  ac- 
quire a  meaning  more  precise  and  fixed.  Firmi- 
lian  calls  Noah's  ark  the  sacrament  of  the  church 
of  Christ '^  It  is  m.anifest,  from  the  illustration 
he  subjoins,  that  he  means  the  symbol,  t3'pe,  or 
emblem,  of  the  church  ;  alluding  to  an  expression 
of  the  Apostle  Peter  ^\  This  may,  on  a  super- 
ficial view,  be  thought  nearly  coincident  with  the 
second    sense     of    the    word    fivan^gLov,    above 

•   15  Gal.  iv.  22,  &c.        ^^  Cjp.  Epist.  75.  in  some  editions  43. 
"   1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21. 
VOL.    IL  9 


70  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

assigned.  But,  in  fact,  it  is  rather  an  inversion  of 
it.  It  is  not,  in  Scripture-language,  the  type  that 
is  called  the  mystery,  but  the  antitype  ;  not  the 
sign,  in  any  figurative  speech  or  action,  but  the 
thing  signified.  It  would,  therefore,  have  corres- 
ponded better  to  the  import  of  the  Greek  word, 
to  say,  "  The  church  of  Christ  is  the  sacrament  of 
"  Noah's  ark  ;"  to  ^vcJirigiov,  the  secret  antitype, 
which  that  vessel,  destined  for  the  salvation  of  the 
chosen  few,  from  the  deluge,  was  intended  to 
adumbrate.  This  use,  however,  not  uncommon 
among  the  fathers  of  the  third  century,  has  given 
rise  to  the  definition  of  a  sacrament,  as  the  visible 
sign  of  cm  invisible  grace  ;  a  definition  to  which 
some  regard  has  been  paid  b}'"  most  parties,  Pro- 
testant as  well  as  Romish. 

§  9.  But  to  return  to  ixvaxrigiov  :  it  is  plain  that 
the  earliest  perversion  of  this  word,  from  its 
genuine  and  original  sense  (a  secret,  or  something 
concealed,)  was  in  making  it  to  denote  some  sol- 
emn and  sacred  ceremony.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to 
point  out  the  causes  that  would  naturally  bring 
ecclesiastic  writers  to  employ  it  in  a  sense, 
which  has  so  close  an  affinity  to  a  common  appli- 
cation of  the  word  in  profane  authors.  Among 
the  diffisrent  ceremonies  employed  by  the  heathen, 
in  their  idolatrous  superstitions,  some  were  public 
and  performed  in  the  open  courts,  or  in  those 
parts  of  the  temples  to  which  all  had"  access  ; 
others  Avere  more  secretly  performed  in  places 
from  which  the  crowd  was  carefull}^  excluded. 
To  assist,  or  even  be  present  at  these,  a  select 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  71 

number  only  was  admitted,  to  each  of  whom  a  for- 
mal and  solemn  initiation  was  necessary.  These 
secret  rites,  on  account  of  this  very  circumstance, 
their  secrecy,  were  generally  denominated  myste' 
ries.  They  were  different,  according  to  what  was 
thought  agreeable  to  the  different  deities,  in 
whose  honour  they  were  celebrated.  Thus  they 
had  the  mysteries  of  Ceres,  the  mysteries  of  Pros- 
erpine, the  mysteries  of  Bacchus,  &c.  Now  there 
were  some  things  in  the  Christian  worship,  which, 
though  essentially  different  from  all  Pagan  rites, 
had  as  much  resemblance,  in  this  circumstance, 
the  exclusion  ol  the  multitude,  as  would  give  suf- 
ficient handle  to  the  heathen  to  style  them  the 
Christian  mysteries. 

§  10.  Probably  the  term  would  be  first  applied 
only  to  what  was  called  in  the  primitive  church, 
the  eucharist,  which  we  call  the  Lord's  supper  ; 
and  afterwards  extended  to  baptism  and  other 
sacred  ceremonies.  In  regard  to  the  first-men- 
tioned ordinance,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  in  the 
article  of  concealment,  there  was  a  pretty  close 
analogy.  Not  only  were  all  infidels,  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  excluded  from  witnessing  the  com- 
memoration of  the  death  of  Christ ;  but  even 
many  believers,  particularly  the  catechumens  and 
the  penitents  ;  the  former,  because  not  yet  initiat- 
ed by  baptism  into  the  church  ;  the  latter,  be- 
cause not  yet  restored  to  the  comm^union  of 
Christians,  after  having  fallen  into  some  scanda- 
lous sin.  Besides,  the  secrecy  that  Christians 
were   often,  on  account   of   the   persecutions  to 


72  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

which  they  were  exposed,  obliged  to  observe, 
which  made  them  meet  for  sociaf  worship  in  the 
night  time,  or  very  early  in  the  morning,  would 
naturally  draw  on  their  ceremonies,  from  the  Gen- 
tiles, the  name  of  mysteries.  And  it  is  not  un- 
reasonable to  think,  that  a  name  which  had  its 
rise  among  their  enemies,  might  afterAvards  be 
adopted  by  themselves.  The  name  Christians, 
first  used  at  Antioch,  seems,  from  the  manner 
wherein  it  is  mentioned  in  the  Acts^®,  to  have 
been  at  first  given  contemptuously  to  the  disciples 
by  infidels,  and  not  assumed  by  themselves.  The 
common  titles  by  which,  for  many  years  after  that 
period,  they  continued  to  distinguish  those  of 
their  own  society,  as  we  learn  both  from  the  Acts, 
and  from  Paul's  Epistles,  were  the  faithful,  or  be- 
lievers, the  disciples,  and  the  brethren.  Yet,  before 
the  expiration  of  the  apostolic  age,  they  adopted 
the  name  Christian,  and  gloried  in  it.  The  Apos- 
tle Peter  uses  it  in  one  place  ^^,  the  only  place  in 
Scripture  wherein  it  is  used  by  one  of  themselves. 
Some  other  words  and  phrases  which  became 
fashionable  amongst  ecclesiastic  writers,  might 
naturally  enough  be  accounted  for  in  the  same 
manner. 

§  11.  But  how  the  Greek  fivdTj^giov  came  first 
to  be  translated  into  Latin  sacramenttim,  it  is  not 
easy  to  conjecture.  None  of  the  classical  signifi- 
cations of  the  Latin  word  seems  to  have  any 
affinity   to   the    Greek   term.      For   whether   we 

18  Acts,  xi.  26.  13  1  Pet.  iv.  16. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  73 

understand  it  simply  for  a  sacred  ceremony,  sacra' 
mentum  from  sacrare,  as  juramentiim  from  jurare^ 
or  for  the  pledge  deposited  by  the  litigants  in  a 
process,  to  ensure  obedience  to  the  award  of  the 
judge,  or  for  the  military  oath  of  fidelity,  none  of 
these  conveys  to  us  either  of  the  senses  of  the 
word  fivdTjfgLov  explained  above.  At  the  same 
time  it  is  not  denied  that,  in  the  classical  import, 
the  Latin  word  may  admit  an  allusive  application 
to  the  more  solemn  ordinances  of  religion,  as  im- 
plying, in  the  participants,  a  sacred  engagement 
equivalent  to  an  oath.  All  that  I  here  contend  for 
-is,  that  the  I^tin  word  sacramentum  does  not, 
in  any  of  these  senses,  convey  exactly  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  name  fivarr^Qiov,  whose  place  it 
occupies  in  the  Vulgate.  Houbigant,  a  Romish 
priest,  has,  in  his  Latin  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  used  neither  sacramentum  nor  myste- 
rium  ;  but  where  either  of  these  terms  had  been 
employed  in  the  Vulgate,  he  substitutes  secretum, 
arcanum,  or  absconditum.  Erasmus,  though  he 
wrote  at  an  earlier  period,  has  only  once  admitted 
sacramentum  into  his  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  said,  with  the  Vulgate,  sacramentum 
septem  stellarnm. 

Now,  it  is  to  this  practice,  not  easily  accounted 
for,  in  the  old  Latin  translators,  that  we  owe  the 
ecclesiastical  term  sacrament,  which,  though  pro- 
perly not  scriptural,  even  Protestants  have  not 
thought  fit  to  reject  :  they  have  only  confined  it 
a  little  in  the  application,  using  it  solely  of  the 
two  primary  institutions  of  the  Gospel,  baptism 


74  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

and  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  whereas  the  Romanists 
apply  it  also  to  five  other  ceremorties,  in  all  seven. 
Yet,  even  this  application  is  not  of  equal  latitude 
with  that  Avherein  it  is  used  in  the  Vulgate.  The 
sacrament  of  God's  wilP°,  the  sacrament  of  pie- 
ty ^\  the  sacrament  of  a  dream  ^^  the  sacrament 
of  the  seven  stars  ^^  and  the  sacrament  of  the 
woman  ^^  are  phrases  which  sound  very  strangely 
in  our  ears. 

§  12.  So  much  for  the  introduction  of  the  term 
sacrament  into  the  Christian  theology,  which 
(however  convenient  it  may  be  for  expressing 
some  important  rites  of  our  religion,)  has,  in  none 
of  the  places  where  it  occurs  in  the  Vulgate,  a 
reference  to  any  rite  or  ceremony  whatever,  but 
is  always  the  version  of  the  Greek  word  (ivaxyi- 
giov,  or  the  corresponding  term  in  Hebrew  or 
Chaldee.  Now  the  term  fivarrfgiov,  as  has  been 
shown,  is  always  predicated  of  some  doctrine,  or 
of  some  matter  of  fact,  wherein  it  is  the  intention 
of  the  writer  to  denote  that  the  information  he 
gives  either  was  a  secret  formerly,  or  is  the  latent 
meaning  of  some  type,  allegory,  figurative  de- 
scription, dream,  vision,  or  fact  referred  to.  No 
religion  abounded  more  in  pompous  rites  and  ordi- 
nances than  the  Jewish,  yet  they  are  never,  in 
Scripture,  (any  more  than  the  ceremonies  of  the 
New  Testament)  denominated  either  mysteries  or 

20  Eph.  i.  9.  ^1  1  Tim.  Hi.  16. 

22  Dan.  ii.  18.  30.  47.  23  Rev.  i.  20. 

2<  Rev.  xvii.  7. 


r.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  75 

sacraments.  Indeed  with  us  Protestants,  the 
meanings  in  present  use  assigned  to  these  two 
words,  are  so  totally  distinct,  the  one  relating 
solely  to  doctrine,  the  other  solely  to  positive  in- 
stitutions, that  it  may  look  a  little  oddly  to  bring 
them  together,  in  the  discussion  of  the  same 
critical  question.  But  to  those  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  Christian  antiquity,  and  foreign  use  in 
these  matters,  or  have  been  accustomed  to  the 
Vulgate  translation,  there  Avill  be  no  occasion  for 
an  apology. 

§  13.  Before  I  finish  this  topic,  it  is  proper 
to  take  notice  of  one  passage  wherein  the  word 
fivdzTfQiov,  it  may  be  plausibly  urged,  must  have 
the  same  sense  with  that  which  present  use  gives 
to  the  English  word  mystery^  and  denotes  some- 
thing which,  though  revealed,  is  inexplicable,  and, 
to  human  faculties,  unintelligible.  The  words 
are,  Without  controversy  great  is  the  mystery  of 
godliness:  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified 
in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the 
Gentiles,  believed  07i  in  the  world,  received  up  into 
glory  ^^  I  do  not  here  inquire  into  the  justness 
of  this  reading,  though  differing  from  that  of  the 
two  most  ancient  versions,  the  Syriac  and.  the 
Vulgate,  and  some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts.  The 
words,  as  they  stand,  sufficiently  answer  my  pur- 
pose. Admit  then  that  some  of  the  great  articles 
enumerated  may  be  justly  called  mysteries,  in  the 
ecclesiastical  and  present  acceptation  of  the  term  j 

55  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 


76  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

it  does  not  follow  that  this  is  the  sense  of  the  term 
here.  When  a  word  in  a  sentence  of  holy  writ  is 
susceptible  of  two  interpretations,  so  that  the  sen- 
tence, whichsoever  of  the  two  ways  the  word  be 
interpreted,  conveys  a  distinct  meaning  suitable 
to  the  scope  of  the  place  ;  and  when  one  of  thc^se 
interpretations  expresses  the  common  import  of 
the  word  in  holy  Avrit,  and  the  other  assigns  it  a 
meaning  which  it  plainly  has  not  in  any  other 
passage  of  Scripture,  the  rules  of  criticism  mani- 
festly require  that  we  recur  to  the  common  ac- 
ceptation of  the  term.  Nothing  can  vindicate  us 
in  giving  it  a  singular,  or  even  a  very  uncommon, 
signification,  but  that  all  the  more  usual  mean- 
ings would  make  the  sentence  involve  some  ab- 
surdity  or  nonsense.  This  is  not  the  case  here. 
The  purport  of  the  sentence  plainly  is,  "  Great 
*'  unquestionably  is  the  divine  secret,  of  which  our 
"  religion  brings  the  discovery  ;  God  was  mianifest 
**  in  the  flesh,  &c." 


PART  II. 


OF    BLASPHEMY. 


I  PROPOSED,  in  the  second  place,  to  offer  a  few 
thoughts  on  the  import  of  tlie  word  (iXaocpi^fua, 
frequently  translated  blasphemy.  I  am  far  from 
affirming  that  in  the  present  use  of  the  English 
word,  there  is  such  a  departure  from  the  import 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  77 

of  the  original,  as  in  that  remarked  in  the  preced- 
ing article,  between  fivoirfgiov,  and  mystery:   at 
the  same  time  it  is  proper  to  observe,  that  in  most 
cases  there  is  not  a  perfect  coincidence.     BXaa- 
ftffiia  properly   denotes  calumny^   detraction^  re- 
proachful or  abusive  language,  against  whomso- 
ever   it    be    vented.      There    does    not    seem, 
therefore,  to  have  been  any  necessity  for  adopting 
the  Greek  word  into  our  language,  one  or  other 
of    the    English    expressions    above    mentioned, 
being,  in  every  case,  sufficient  for  conveying  the 
sense.     Here,  as  in  other  instances,  we  have,  with 
Other    modernsf  implicitly    followed   the    Latins, 
who  had  in  this  no  more  occasion  than  we,  for  a 
phraseology,  not  originall}^  of  their  own  growth. 
To  have  uniformly  translated,  and  not  transferred, 
,  the  words  ^Xac«prffiia  and  (iXaacprffieLv,  would  have 
both    contributed   to   perspicuity,  and  tended  to 
detect  the  abuse  of  the  terms  when  wrested  from 
their  proper  meaning.      That  /SAac^pj^^ta  and  its 
conjugates  are  in  the  New  Testament  very  often 
applied  to  reproaches  not  aimed  against  God,  is 
evident   from    the   passages    referred    to   in    the 
margin  ^^;  in  the  much  greater  part  of  v.hich  the 
English  translators,  sensible  that  they  could  admit 
no    such   application,  have    not  used  the  words 
blaspheme  or  blasphemy,  but  rail,  revile,  speak  evil, 
Sfc.     In  one   of  the  passages  quoted,  a  reproach- 
's Matth.  xii.   31,  32.   xxvii.  39.     Mark,  xv.  29.     Luke,  xxii. 
65.  xxiii.  39.     Rom.  iii.  8.  xiv.  16.     1  Cor.  iv.  13.  x.  30.     Eph. 
iv.  31.     1   Tim.  vi.  4.    Tit.  iii.   2.     1  Pet.  iv.  4.  14.     Jude,  9, 
10.     Acts,  vi.  11.  13.     2  Pet.  ii.  10,  11. 
VOL.    II.  10 


78  PRELIMINARY  [d.    ix. 

fill  charge  brought  even  against  the  devil,  is  called 
y.gioi?  (SXaacpT^fiLas  ^^,  and  rendered  by  them  railing 
accusation.  That  the  word  in  some  other  places^® 
ought  to  have  been  rendered  in  the  same  general 
terms,  I  shall  afterwards  show.  But  with  respect 
to  the  principal  point,  that  the  word  comprehends 
all  verbal  abuse,  against  whomsoever  uttered, 
God,  angel,  man,  or  devil ;  as  it  is  universally  ad- 
mitted by  the  learned,  it  would  be  losing  time  to 
attempt  to  prove.  The  passages  referred  to  will 
be  more  than  sufficient  to  all  who  can  read  them 
in  the  original  Greek. 

§  2.  But  it  deserves  our  notice,  and  it  is  prin- 
cipally for  this  reason,  that  I  judged  it  proper  to 
make  some  remarks  on  the  word,  that  even  when 
^},a<j(pi^fiLa  refers  to  reproachful  speeches  against 
God,  and  so  comes  nearer  the  meaning  of  our 
word  blasphemy ;  still  the  primitive  notion  of  this 
crime  has  undergone  a  considerable  change  in  our 
way  of  conceiving  it.  The  causes  it  would  not 
perhaps  be  difficult  to  investigate,  but  the  effi^ct 
is  undeniable.  In  theological  disputes  nothing 
is  more  common,  to  the  great  scandal  of  the 
Christian  name,  than  the  imputation  of  blasphemy 
thrown  by  each  side  upon  the  other.  The  injus- 
tice of  the  charge,  on  both  sides,  will  be  manifest 
on  a  little  reflection,  which  it  is  the  more  neces- 
sary to  bestow,  as  the  commonness  of  the  accusa- 
tion, and  the  latent,   but  contagious,  motives  of 

27  Jutle,  9. 
^8  Acts,  xiii.  15.  xviii.  0.  xxvi.  11.     Col.  iii.  8.     1  Tim.  i.  13. 
2  Tim.  iii.  2. 


I'.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  79 

employing  it,  have  gradually  perverted  our  con- 
ceptions of  the  thing. 

§  3.  It  has  been  remarked  already,  that  the  im- 
port of  the  word  (SXaacptffiia  is  tn'aledice7itia,  in  the 
largest  acceptation,  comprehending  all  sorts  of 
verbal  abuse,  imprecation,  reviling,  and  calumny. 
Now  let  it  be  observed,  that  when  such  abuse 
is  mentioned  as  uttered  agiirst  God,  there  is 
properly  no  change  made  in  the  signification  of 
the  word ;  the  change  is  only  in  the  application, 
that  is,  in  the  reference  to  a  different  object. 
The  idea  conveyed  in  the  explanation  now  given 
is  always  included,  against  whomsoever  the  crime 
be  committed.  In  this  manner  every  term  is  un- 
derstood that  is  applicable  to  both  God  and  man. 
Thus  the  meaning  of  the  word  disobey  is  the 
same,  whether  we  speak  of  disobeying  God  or  of 
disobeying  man.  The  same  may  be  said  of  be- 
lieve, honour,  fear,  &c.  As  therefore  the  sense 
of  the  term  is  the  same,  though  differently  ap- 
plied, what  is  essential  to  constitute  the  crime  of 
detraction  in  the  one  case,  is  essential  also  in  the 
other.  But  it  is  essential  to  this  crime  as  com- 
monly understood,  when  committed  by  one  man 
against  another,  that  there  be  in  the  injurious  per- 
son the  will  or  disposition  to  detract  from  the 
person  abused.  Mere  mistake  in  regard  to  char- 
acter, especially  when  the  mistake  is  not  con- 
ceived by  him  who  entertains  it  to  lessen  the 
character,  nay,  is  supposed,  however  erroneously, 
to  exalt  it,  is  never  construed  by  any  into  the 
crime  of  defamation.     Now,  as   blasphemy  is,  in 


80  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

its  essence,  the  same  crime,  but  immensely  ag- 
gravated, by  being  committed  against  an  object 
infinitely  superior  to  man,  what  is  fundamental  to 
the  existence  of  the  crime,  will  be  found  in  this, 
as  in  every '  other  species,  which  comes  under 
the  general  name.  There  can  be  no  blasphemy, 
therefore,  where  there  is  not  an  impious  purpose  to 
derogate  from  the  divine  majesty,  and  to  alienate 
the  minds  of  others  from  the  love  and  reverence 
of  God. 

§  4.  Hence,  we  must  be  sensible  of  the  injus- 
tice of  so  frequently  using  the  odious  epithet  blas- 
phemous in  our  controversial  writings ;  an  evil 
imputable  solely  to  the  malignity  of  temper,  which 
a  habit  of  such  disputation  rarely  fails  to  pro- 
duce. Hence  it  is,  that  the  Arminian  and  the 
Calvinist,  the  Arian  and  the  Athanasian,  the  Pro- 
testant and  the  Papist,  the  Jesuit  and  the  Janse- 
nist,  throw  and  retort  on  each  other  the  unchris- 
tian reproach.  Yet  it  is  no  more  than  justice  to 
say,  that  each  of  the  disputants  is  so  far  from  in- 
tending to  diminish,  in  the  opinion  of  others,  the 
honour  of  the  Almighty,  that  he  is,  on  the  contra- 
ry, fully  convinced,  that  his  own  principles  are 
better  adapted  to  raise  it  than  those  of  his  antago- 
nist, and,  for  that  very  reason,  he  is  so  strenuous 
in  maintaining  them.  But  to  blacken,  as  much  as 
possible,  the  designs  of  an  adversary,  in  order  the 
more  effectually  to  render  his  opinions  hateful,  is 
one  of  the  many  common,  but  detestable  resources 
of  theological  controvertists.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  the  sense,  not  only  of  the  injustice  of  this 


p.  n.]  DISSERTATIONS.  81 

measure,  but  of  its  inefficacy  for  producing  con- 
viction in  the  mind  of  a  reasonable  antagonist,  and 
of  the  bad  impression  it  tends  to  make  on  the 
impartial  and  judicious,  in  regard  both  to  the 
arguers  and  to  the  argument,  will  at  length  induce 
men  to  adopt  more  candid  methods  of  manag- 
ing their  disputes  ;  and  even,  when  provoked  by 
the  calumnious  and  angry  epithets  of  an  opposer, 
not  to  think  of  retaliating  ;  but  to  remember,  that 
they  will  derive  more  honour  from  imitating,  as  is 
their  duty,  the  conduct  of  Him  who,  when  he  was 
reviled,  reviled  not  again. 

§  5.  But,  after  observing  that  this  perversion 
of  the  word  blasphemy  results,  for  the  most  part, 
from  the  intemperate  heat  and  violence  with 
which  polemic  writers  manage  their  religious  con- 
tests ;  it  is  no  more  than  doing  justice  to  theolo- 
gians and  ecclesiastics  (though  it  may  look  like  a 
digression,)  to  remark,  that  this  evidence  of  undue 
acrimony  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  them.  So 
uncontrollable  is  this  propensity  in  men  of  violent 
passions,  that  even  sceptics  cannot  pretend  an 
entire  exemption  from  it.  Some  allowances 
ought  doubtless  to  be  made  for  the  rage  of  bigots, 
inflamed  by  contradiction,  from  the  infinite  conse- 
quence they  always  ascribe  to  their  own  religious 
dogmas  ;  but  when  a  reasoner,  an  inquirer  into 
truth,  and,  consequently,  a  dispassionate  and  un- 
prejudiced person  (and  doubtless  such  a  man  Lord 
Bolingbroke  chose  to  be  accounted,)  falls  into 
the  same   absurdity,  adopts  the  furious  language 


82  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

of  fanaticism,  and  rails  against  those  whose  theory 
he  combats,  calling  them  impious  blasphemers^ 
to  what  allowance  can  we  justly  think  him  enti- 
tled ?  I  know  of  none,  except  our  pity  ;  to 
which,  indeed,  a  manner,  so  much  beneath  the 
dignity  of  the  philosopher,  and  unbecoming  the 
patience  and  self-command  implied  in  cool  inquiry, 
seems  to  give  him  a  reasonable  claim.  Since, 
however,  with  this  defect  of  discernment,  candour, 
and  moderation,  philosophers  as  well  as  zealots, 
infidels  as  well  as  fanatics,  and  men  of  the  world 
as  well  as  priests,  are  sometimes  chargeable,  it 
may  not  be  unreasonable  to  bestow  a  few  reflec- 
tions on  it. 

§  6.  First,  to  recur  to  analogy,  and  the  reason 
of  the  thing  :  I  believe  there  are  few  who  have 
not  sometimes  had  occasion  to  hear  a  man  warm- 
ly, and  with  the  very  best  intentions,  commend 
another,  for  an  action  which  in  reality  merited  not 
praise  but  blame.  Yet  no  man  would  call  the 
person  who,  through  simplicit}',  acted  this  part,  a 
slanderer ;  whether  the  fact  he  related  of  his 
friend  were  true  or  false  ;  since  he  seriously 
meant  to  raise  esteem  of  him  :  for  an  intention  to 
depreciate,  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  slander.  To 
praise  injudiciously,  is  one  thing  ;  to  slander,  is 
another.  The  former,  perhaps,  will  do  as  much 
hurt  to  the  character,  which  is  the  subject  of  it, 
as  the  latter:  but  the  merit  of  human" actions 
depends  entirely  on  the  motive.  There  is  a  ma- 
liciousness in  the  calumniator,  which  no  person 
who  reflects,  is   in   danger   of    confounding  with 


p.  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  «S 

the  unconscious  blundering  of  a  man,  whose 
praise  detracts  from  the  person  whom  he  means 
to  honour.  The  blasphemer  is  no  other  than  the 
calumniator  of  Almighty  God.  To  constitute  the 
crime,  it  is  as  necessary  that  this  species  of  cal- 
umny be  intentional,  as  that  the  other  be.  He 
must  be  one,  therefore,  who,  by  his  impious  talk, 
endeavours  to  inspire  others  with  the  same  irrev- 
erence towards  the  Deity,  or,  perhaps,  abhor- 
rence, of  him,  which  he  indulges  in  himself. 
And  though,  for  the  honour  of  human  nature, 
it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  very  few  arrive  at  this 
enormous  guiU,  it  ought  not  to  be  dissembled, 
that  the  habitual  profanation  of  the  name  and 
attributes  of  God,  by  common  swearing,  is  but 
too  manifest  an  approach  towards  it.  There  is 
not  an  entire  coincidence.  The  latter  of  these 
vices  may  be  considered  as  resulting  solely  from 
the  defect  of  what  is  good  in  principle  and  dis- 
position ;  the  former,  from  the  acquisition  of  what 
is  evil  in  the  extreme  :  but  there  is  a  close  con- 
nection betv/een  them,  and  an  insensible  gradation 
from  the  one  to  the  other.  To  accustom  one's 
self  to  treat  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe  with 
irreverent  familiarity,  is  the  first  step  ;  malignly 
to  arraign  his  attributes,  and  revile  his  providence, 
is  the  last. 

§  7.  But  it  may  be  said,  that  an  inquiry  into 
the  proper  notion  of  l3Xaa(prffxia,  in  the  sacred 
writings,  is  purely  a  matter  of  criticism,  concern- 
ing the  import  of  a  word,  whose  signification  must 
be  ultimately  determined  by  scriptural  use.     Our 


84  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

reasonings,  therefore,  are  of  no  validity,  unless 
they  are  supported  by  fact.  Tru^  :  but  it  ought 
to  be  considered,  on  the  other  hand,  that  as  the 
word  ^XaafTifisiv,  when  men  are  the  objects,  is 
manifestly  used  for  intentional  abuse,  the  pre- 
sumption is,  that  the  signification  is  the  same, 
when  God  is  the  object.  Nay,  according  to  the 
rules  of  criticism,  it  is  evidence  sufficient,  unless 
a  positive  proof  could  be  brought,  that  the  word, 
in  this  application,  undergoes  a  change  of  mean- 
ing. In  the  present  instance,  however,  it  is  un- 
necessary to  recur  to  the  presumption,  as  positive 
testimony  can  be  produced,  that  both  the  verb 
and  the  noun  have  the  same  meaning  in  these  dif- 
ferent applications. 

§  8.  Let  it  be  observed,  then,  that  sometimes, 
in  the  same  sentence,  the  word  is  applied  in  com- 
mon both  to  divine  and  to  human  beings,  which 
are  specified  as  the  objects,  and  construed  with 
it,  and  sometimes  the  word,  having  been  applied 
to  one  of  these,  is  repeated,  in  an  application  to 
tlie  other  ;  the  sacred  writers  thereby  showing, 
that  the  evil  is  the  same  in  kind  in  both  cases, 
and  that  the  cases  are  discriminated  solely  by  the 
dignity  of  the  object.  Thus  our  Lord  says  (as 
in  the  common  translation.)  ,,^ll  manner  of  blas- 
phemy, Ttaaa  ^Xaaip-q^ia,  shall  be  forgiven  unto 
men  :  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
shall  not  be  forgiven ^^.     The   difference  in  point 

-^  Matth.  xii.  31.     See   the   passage  in   this   translation,  and 
the  note  upon  it 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  85 

of  atrociousness  is  here   exceedingly   great,    the 
one  being  represented  as  unpardonable,  and  the 
oth-er   as   what   may    be   pardoned  ;    but   this   is 
exhibited   as   resulting   purely   from   the    infinite 
disparity  of  the  objects.     The  application  of  the 
same  name  to  the  two  crimes  compared,  gives  us 
to  understand  the  immense  disproportion  there  is, 
in  respect  of  guilt,  between  the  same  criminal  be- 
haviour, when  aimed  against  our  fellow-creatures, 
and  when  directed  against  the  Author  of  our  be- 
ing.    As  the  English  word  blasphemy  is  not  of 
the  same  extent  of  signification  with  the  Greek, 
and  is  not  properly  applied  to  any  abuse  vented 
against  man,  it  would  have  been  better  here  to 
have   chosen  a  common  term  which   would  have 
admitted  equally  an  application  to  either,  such  as 
reproach  or  detraction.      The  expression  of  the 
Evangelist  Mark,  in  the  parallel  place  ^'^,  is  to  the 
same   purpose.      Again,   in    the   Acts,    We   have 
heard  him  speak  blasphemous  ivords,  'grffiaia  (3Xaa- 
(prifia,  against  Moses,  and  against  God  ^K     Like  to 
this  is  that  passage  in  the   Old  Testament,  where 
the  false  witnesses  who  were  suborned  to  testify 
against  Naboth   say.    Thou  didst  blaspheme   God 
and  the  king^^.     Though  the  word  in  tlie  Septua- 
gint  is  not  (Haacp-qfinv,  it  is  a  term  which,  in  that 
version, is  sometimes  used  synonymously, asindeed 
are   all   the  terms  which  in   the   original    denote 
cursing,  reviling,  defaming. 

»^  Mark,  iii.  28,  29.  31  Acts,  vi.  11. 

3^   1  Kings,  xxi.  10. 

VOL.    11.  11 


86  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

§  9.  Further,    with    the    account  given  above, 
of  the  nature  of  blasphemy^  the  sty\e  of  Scripture 
perfectly  agrees.     No   errors  concerning  the  di- 
vine  perfections   can   be    grosser    than   those    of 
polytheists    and    idolaters,   such    as    the    ancient 
pagans.     Errors  on  this,  if  on  any    subject,  are 
surely  fundamental.     Yet  those  errors  are  never 
in  holy  writ  brought  under  the   denomination  of 
blasphemy  :    nor   are   those   who    maintain  them 
ever  styled  blasphemers.     Nay,  among  those  who 
are  no  idolaters,  but  acknowledge  the  unity  and 
spirituality  of  the  divine  nature  (as   did  all   the 
Jewish  sects,)  it  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  this 
crime,  that  a  man's  opinions  be,  in  their  conse- 
quences, derogatory  from  the  divine  majesty,  if 
they  be  not  perceived  to  be  so  by  him  who  holds 
them,  and  broached  on  purpose  to  diminish  men's 
veneration  of  God.     The  opinions   of  the  Saddu- 
cees  appear  in  effect  to  have  detracted  from  the 
justice,  the   goodness,  and  even  the  power  of  the 
Deity,  as  their  tendency  was  but  too  manifestly  to 
diminish  in  men  the  fear  of  God,  and  consequently 
to   weaken   their   obligations  to  obey  him.     Yet 
neither    our    Saviour,   nor    any    of    the   inspired 
writers,  calls  them  blasphemous,  as  those  opinions 
did  not  appear  to  themselves  to  detract,  nor  Avere 
advanced  with   the   intention  of  detracting,  from 
the  honour  of  God.     Our  Lord  only  said  to  the 
Sadducees,    Ye  err,  not  knoiving  the    /Scriptures, 
nor  the  power  of  God'^^.     Nay,  it  does  not  appear 

»3  MaUh.  xxii.  19. 


p.  ii]  DISSERTATIONS.  87 

that  even  their  adversaries  the  Pharisees,  though 
the  first  who  seem  to  have  perverted  the  word 
(as  shall  be  remarked  afterwards,)  and  though 
immoderately  attached  to  their  own  tenets,  ever 
reproached  them  as  blasphemers,  on  account  of 
their  erroneous  opinions.  Nor  is  indeed  the  epi- 
thet blasphemous^  or  any  synonymous  term,  ever 
coupled  in  Scripture  (as  is  common  in  modern 
use)  with  doctrines,  thoughts,  opinions.  It  is  never 
applied  but  to  words  and  speeches.  A  blasphe- 
mous opinion,  or  blasphemous  doctrine,  are  phrases, 
which  (how  familiar  soever  to  us)  are  as  unsuita- 
ble to  the  scriptural  idiom,  as  a  railing  opinion,  or 
slanderous  doctrine,  is  to  ours. 

§  10.  But  to  proceed  from  what  is  not,  to  what 
is,  called  blasphemy  in  Scripture  :  the  first  divine 
law  published  against  it,  He  that  blasphemeth  the 
name  of  the  Lord  (or  Jehovah,  as  it  is  in  the  He- 
brew) shall  be  put  to  death  ^^  when  considered, 
along  with  the  incident  that  occasioned  it,  sug- 
gests a  very  atrocious  offence  in  words,  no  less 
than  abuse  or  imprecations,  vented  against  the 
Deity.  For,  in  what  way  soever  the  crime  of 
the  man  there  mentioned  be  interpreted,  whether 
as  committed  against  the  true  God,  .the  God  of 
Israel,  or  against  any  of  the  false  gods  whom  his 
Egyptian  father  worshipped,  the  law  in  the  words 
now  quoted  is  sufficiently  explicit;  and  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the   story    plainly    show  that   the 

''*  Lev.  xxiv.  15,  16. 


88  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

words  which  he  had  used,  were  derogatory  from 
the  Godhead,  and  shocking  to  the  hearers. 

And,  if  we  add  to  this,  the  only  other  memora- 
ble instance,  in  sacred  history,  namely, /that  of 
Rabshakeh,  it  will  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  it  is 
solely  a  malignant  attempt,  in  words,  to  lessen 
men's  reverence  of  the  true  God,  and  by  vilifying 
his  perfections,  to  prevent  their  placing  confidence 
in  him,  which  is  called  in  Scripture  blasphemy, 
when  the  word  is  employed  to  denote  a  sin  com- 
mitted directly  against  God.  This  was  manifestly 
the  attempt  of  Rabshakeh  when  he  said,  JSTeither 
let  Hezekiah  make  you  trust  in  the  Lord  (the  word 
is  Jehovah,)  saying,  Jehovah  will  surely  deliver 
us.  Hath  any  of  the  gods  of  the  nations  delivered 
his  land  out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  jlssyria  ? 
Where  are  the  gods  of  Hamath  and  of  Arpad  ? 
Where  are  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim,  Hena,  and  Ivahf 
Have  they  delivered  Samariah  out  of  my  hand  ? 
Who  are  they  among  all  the  gods  of  the  countries, 
that  have  delivered  their  country  out  of  mine  hand, 
that  Jehovah  should  deliver  Jerusalem  out  of  nxine 
hand''? 

§  11.  Blasphemy,  I  acknowledge,  like  every 
other  species  of  defamation,  may  proceed  from 
ignorance  combined  with  rashness  aud  presump- 
tion ;  but  it  invariably  implies  (which  is  not  im- 
plied in  mere  error)  an  expression  of  contempt 
or  detestation,  and  a  desire  of  producing  the  same 

•5  2  Kings,  xviii.  30.  33,  34,  35. 


p.  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  ^  $9 

passions  in  others.  As  this  conduct,  however,  is 
more  heinous  in  the  knowing  than  in  the  ignorant, 
there  are  degrees  of  guilt  even  in  blasphemy. 
God's  name  is  said  to  be  blasphemed  among  the 
heathen,  through  the  scandalous  conduct  of  his 
worshippers.  And  when  Nathan  said  to  David, 
By  this  deed  thou  hast  given  occasion  to  the  ene- 
mies of  Jehovah  to  blaspheme  ^^  his  design  was 
evidently  to  charge  on  that  monarch,  a  considera- 
ble share  of  the  guilt  of  those  blasphemies  to 
which  his  heinous  transgression  in  the  matter  of 
Uriah,  would  give  rise  among  their  idolatrous 
neighbours  :  foy  here,  as  in  other  cases,  the  fla- 
grant iniquity  of  the  servant,  rarely  fails  to  bring 
reproach  on  the  master,  and  on  the  service.  It 
is,  without  doubt,  a  most  flagitious  kind  of  blas- 
phemy whereof  those  men  are  guilty  who,  instead 
of  being  brought  to  repentance  by  the  plagues 
wherewith  God  visits  them  for  their  sins,  are  fired 
with  a  monstrous  kind  of  revenge  against  their 
Maker,  which  they  vent  in  vain  curses  and  im- 
pious reproaches.  Thus,  in  the  Apocalypse,  we 
are  informed  of  those  who  blasphemed  the  God  of 
heaven,,  because  of  their  pains  and  their  sores,  and 
repented  not  of  their  deeds  '^. 

§  12.  It  wall  perhaps  be  objected,  that  even  the 
inspired  penmen  of  the  New  Testament  some- 
times use  the  word  with  greater  latitude  than  has 
here  been  given  it.  The  Jews  are  said,  by  the 
sacred  historian,  to  have  spoken  against  the  things 

36  2  Sam.  xii.  14.  »7  Rev.  xvi.  11. 


90  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

preached  by  Paul,  contradicting  and  blaspheming^. 
And  it  is  said  of  others  of  the  samfe  nation,  When 
they  opposed  themselves  and  blasphemed^^.  Now, 
as  zeal  for  God  and  religion  was  the  constant  pre- 
text of  the  Jews  for  vindicating  their  opposition 
to  Christianity,  it  cannot  be  imagined  they  would 
have  thrown  out  any  thing  like  direct  blasphemy 
or  reproaches  against  God.  It  may,  therefore, 
be  plausibly  urged,  that  it  must  have  been  (if  we 
may  borrow  a  term  from  the  law)  such  constructive 
blasphemy,  as  when  we  call  fundamental  errors 
in  things  divine,  by  that  odious  name.  But  the 
answer  is  easy.  It  has  been  shown  already,  that 
the  Greek  word  implies  no  more  than  to  revile, 
defame,  or  give  abusive  language.  As  the  term  is 
general,  and  equally  applicable,  whether  God  be 
the  object  of  the  abuse,  or  man,  it  ought  never 
to  be  rendered  blaspheme,  unless  when  the  con- 
text manifestl}^  restrains  it  to  the  former  applica- 
tion. There  is  this  advantage,  if  the  case  were 
dubious,  in  preserving  the  general  term,  that  if 
God  be  meant  as  the  object  of  their  reproaches, 
still  the  version  is  just.  In  the  story  of  the  son 
of  the  Israelitish  woman,  the  terms  cursing  God, 
and  blaspheming  him  ^^,  are  used  synonymously ; 
and,  in  regard  to  Rabshakeh's  blasphemy,  the 
phrases,  to  reproach  the  living  God  or  Jehovah, 
and  to  blaspheme  him  ^^  ai'e  both  used  in  the 
same  way :  but,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  writer 

38  Acts,  xiii.  45.  ''  xviii.  G.  ^o  Lev.  xxiv.  11.  14. 

4»  2  Kings,  xix.  4.  \<5.  22,  23. 


p.  n.]  DISSERTATIONS.  9i 

meant  abuse  levelled  against  men,  to  render  it 
blaspheme  is  a  real  mis-translation,  inasmuch  as, 
by  representing  the  divine  majesty  as  the  object, 
which  the  English  word  blaspheme  always  does, 
the  sense  is  totally  altered. 

Our  translators  have,  on  other  occasions,  been 
so  sensible  of  this  that,  in  none  of  the  places 
marked  in  the  margin  ^^  have  they  used  bias- 
pheme,  or  any  of  its  conjugates ;  but,  instead  of 
it,  the  words  rail,  revile,  report  slanderously,  speak 
evil,  defame,  though  the  word  in  the  original  is 
the  same ;  nay,  in  some  places,  where  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  o]?ject,  they  translate  it  in  the  same 
manner  ^^  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  the 
two  passages  quoted  from  the  Acts,  the  Apostles 
themselves  were  the  objects  of  the  abuse  which 
fiery  zeal  prompted  their  countrymen  to  tlirow 
out  against  the  propagators  of  a  doctrine,  con- 
sidered by  them  as  subversive  of  the  religion  of 
their  fathers.  Both  passages  are  justly  rendered 
by  Castalio ;  the  first,  Jiidm  contradicebant  iis 
quae  a  Paulo  dicebantur,  reclamanics  ac  convici- 
antes ;  the  second,  Quumque  illi  resisterent  ac 
maledicerent. 

§  13.  The  same  Avill  serve  for  answer  to  the 
objection  founded  on  Paul's  saying  of  himself  be- 
fore his  conversion,  that  he  was  ^  blasphemer '^'^ ; 

■"Rom.   iii.    8.    xiv.  6.      1  Cor.  iv.   13.    x.  ?>'.).     Eph.    iv.   31. 
1   Tim.  vi.  4.     Tit.   iii.  2.     1  Pet.  iv.  1.   It.     2  Pet.  ii.  10,11 
Jude,  9,  10. 

■•^  Matth.  xxvii.  39.     Mark,  xv.  29.     Luke,  xxiii.  39. 

*<  1  Tim.  i.  13. 


92  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

the  word  ought  to  have  been  rendered  defamer. 
Of  this  we  can  make  no  doubt,  wh'en  we  consider 
the  honourable  testimony  which  this  Apostle, 
after  his  conversion,  did  not  hesitate  to  give  of 
his  own  piety  when  a  Jew,  Brethren^  said  he,  / 
have  lived  in  all  good  conscience  before  God 
(rather  toivards  God,  to  0sa,  not  svcotilov  tov 
0sov)  tmtil  this  day  ^^  This  expression,  there- 
fore, regards  what  is  strictly  called  dniy  to  God. 
But  could  he  have  made  this  declaration,  if  his 
conscience  had  charged  him  with  blasphemy,  of 
all  crimes  against  God  the  most  heinous  ?  Should 
it  be  asked,  In  what  sense  could  lie  charge  him- 
self with  defamation  ?  Whom  did  he  defame  ? 
The  answer  is  obvious.  Not  only  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  the  head,  but  the  members  also  of  the 
Christian  community,  both  ministers  and  disci- 
ples. Not  that  he  considered  himself  as  guilty  of 
this  crime  by  implication,  for  disbelieving  that 
Jesus  is  the  Messiah ;  for  neither  Jews  nor  Pa- 
gans are  ever  represented  as  either  blasphemers 
or  calumniators,  merely  for  their  unbelief;  but 
because  he  was  conscious  that  his  zeal  had  carried 
him  much  further,  even  to  exhibit  the  author  of 
this  institution  as  an  impostor  and  false  prophet, 
and  his  Apostles  as  his  accomplices,  in  maliciously 
imposing  upon  the  nation,  and  subverting  the  true 
religion.  That  he  acted  this  part,  the  account 
given  of  his  proceedings,  not  to  mention  this 
declaration,  affords  the  most  ample  evidence. 
We  are  told  that  he  breathed  out  threatenings  and 

*^  Acts,  xxiii.  1. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  93- 

slaughter  againt  his  disciples  ^® ;  and  he  says  him- 
self that  he  was  exceedingly  mad  against  them, 
and  even  compelled  them  to  join  in  the  abuse 
and  reproaches  ^^,  of  which  he  accuses  himself 
as  setting  the  example.  And  though  I  doubt  not 
that  in  this,  Paul  acted  according  to  his  judgment 
at  the  time  ;  for  he  tells  us  expressly  that  he 
thought  verily  with  himself  that  he  ought  to  do 
many  things  contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  ^^;  this 
ignorance  did  indeed  extenuate  his  crime,  but  not 
excuse  it ;  for  it  is  not  he  only  who  invents,  but 
he  also  who  malignantly  and  rashly,  or  without 
examination  and  sufficient  evidence,  propagates  an 
evil  report  against  his  neighbour,  who  is  justly 
accounted  a  defamer. 

Nor  is  the  above-mentioned  the  only  place 
,  wherein  the  word  has  been  misinterpreted  blas- 
phemer. We  have  another  example,  in  the  charac- 
ter which  the  same  Apostle  gives  of  some  se- 
ducers who  were  to  appear  in  the  church,  and  of 
whom  he  tells  us,  that  they  would  have  a  form 
of  godliness.,  but  loithoict  the  power^^.  Now,  blas- 
phemy is  alike  incompatible  with  both  ;  though 
experience  has  shown,  in  all  ages,  that  slander 
and  abuse,  vented  against  men,  however  incon- 
sistent with  the  power  of  godliness,  are  perfectly 
compatible  with  its  form.  Some  other  places 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  word  ought 
to  have  been  translated  in  its  greatest  latitude, 
that  is,  in  the  sense   of  defamation,  or  revilins  in 

^^  Acts,  ix.  1.  "<7  Acts,  xxvi.  11. 

48  Acts,  xxvi.  9.  ■         49  2  Tim.  iii.  5. 

vol-  IL  12 


94  PRELIMINARY    '  [d.  ix. 

general,  are  marked  in  the  margin^".  Indeed,  as 
was  hinted  before,  it  ought  always  to  be  so, 
unless  where  the  scope  of  the  passage  limits  it 
to  that  impious  defamation,  whereof  the  Deity  is 
the  object. 

§  14.  I  KNOW  but  one  other  argument  that  can 
be  drawn  from  Scripture,  in  favour  of  what  I  call 
the  controversial  sense  of  the  word  blasphemy ; 
that  is,  as  applied  to  errors  which,  in  their  conse- 
quences, may  be  thought  to  derogate  from  the 
perfections  or  providence  of  God.  In  this  way  the 
Pharisees,  oftener  than  once,  employ  the  term 
against  our  Lord  ;  and,  if  their  authority  were  to 
us  a  sufficient  warrant,  I  should  admit  this  plea  to 
be  decisive.  But  the  question  of  importance  to 
us  is.  Have  we  the  authority  of  any  of  the  sacred 
writers  for  this  application  of  the  word  ?  Did 
our  Lord  himself,  or  any  of  his  Apostles,  ever 
retort  this  charge  upon  the  Pharisees }  Yet  it 
cannot  be  denied,  that  the  doctrine  then  in  vogue 
with  them  gave,  in  many  things,  if  this  had  been 
a  legitimate  use  of  the  term  blasphenii/,  a  fair  han- 
dle for  such  recrimination.  They  made  void,  we 
are  told,  the  commandment  of  God,  to  make  room 
for  their  tradition  ^^ ;  and  thus,  in  effect,  set  up 
their  own  authority,  in  opposition  to  that  of  their 
Creator.  They  disparaged  the  moral  duties  of 
the  law,  in  order  to  exalt  positive  and  ceremonial 

50  Matth.  xii.  31.  xv.  19.  Mark,  iii.  28,  29,  vii.  22. 
Luke,  xxii.  65.     Col.  ill.  8.     James,  ii.  7. 

5»  Matth.  XV.  6.     Mark,  vii.  13.  ,      . 


p.  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  95 

observances  ^^.  Now,  this  cannot  be  done  by  the 
teachers  of  religion,  without  some  misrepresenta- 
tion of  the  moral  attributes  of  the  Lawgiver, 
whose  character  is  thereby  degraded,  in  the  minds 
of  the  people.  Yet  there  is,  nowhere,  the  most 
distant  insinuation  given  that,  on  any  of  these 
accounts,  they  were  liable  to  the  charge  of 
blasphemy. 

But  no  sooner  did  Jesus  say  to  the  paralytic,  Thi/ 
sins  are  forgiven  thee,  than  the  Scribes  laid  hold 
of  the  expression.  This  man  blaspherueth,  said 
they  :  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  ^^  ?  Their 
plea  was,  it  is  an  invasion  of  the  prerogative  of 
God.  Grotius  observes  justly  of  this  application 
of  the  term,  Dicitiir  hie  ^XaacprnisLv,  non  qui  Deo 
maledicit,  sed  qui  quod  Dei  est,  sibi  arrogat. 
Such,  undoubtedly,  was  their  notion  of  the  mat- 
ter. But  I  do  not  see  any  warrant  they  had  for 
thus  extending  the  signification  of  the  word.  In 
the  simple  and  primitive  import  of  the  name  blas- 
phemer, it  could  not  be  more  perfectly  defined  in 
Latin,  than  by  these  three  words,  qui  Deo  male- 
dicit ;  and,  therefore,  I  cannot  agree  with  the 
generality  of  expositors,  who  seem  to  think,  that 
if  Jesus  had  not  been  the  Messiah,  or  authorized 
of  God  to  declare  to  men  the  remission  of  their 
sins,  the  Scribes  would  have  been  right  in  their 
verdict.  On  the  contrary,  if  one,  unauthorized 
of  Heaven,  had  said  what  our  Lord  is  recorded  to 
have  said  to  the  paralytic,  he  would  not,  in  my 

52  Matth.  xxiii.  23.       Luke,  xi.  42. 
«  Matth.  ix.  3.  Mark,  ii.  7. 


96  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

opinion,  have  been  liable  to  that  accusation  :  he 
would  have  been  chargeable  with  great  presump- 
tion, I  acknowledge  ;  and  if  he  had  been  con- 
scious that  he  had  no  authority,  he  would  have 
been  guilty  of  gross  impiety  ;  but  every  species 
of  impiety  is  not  blasphemy.  Let  us  call  things 
by  their  proper  names.  If  any  of  us  usurp  a  priv- 
ilege that  belongs,  exclusively,  to  another  man,  or, 
if  we  pretend  to  have  his  authority,  when  we 
have  it  not,  our  conduct  is  very  criminal  ;  but  no- 
body would  confound  this  crime  with  calumny. 
No  more  can  the  other  be  termed  blasphemy, 
especially  when  it  results  from  misapprehension, 
and  is  unaccompanied  with  a  malevolent  intention, 
either  to  depreciate  the  character,  or  to  defeat  the 
purpose,  of  the  Almighty.  The  false  prophets, 
who  knowingly  told  lies  in  the  name  of  God,  and 
pretended  a  commission  from  him,  which  they 
knew  they  had  not,  were  liable  to  death  ;  but 
they  are  nowhere  said  to  blaspheme,  that  is,  to 
revile,  or  to  defame,  their  Maker.  Much  less 
could  it  be  said  of  those  who  told  untruths 
through  mistake,  and  without  any  design  of  de- 
tracting from  God. 

This  polemic  application  of  the  term  blasphemy 
must,  therefore,  have  originated  in  the  schools  of 
the  rabbies,  and  appears  to  have  been,  in  the  time 
of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  in  general  vogue 
with  the  Scribes.  Nay,  which  is  exceedingly  re- 
pugnant to  the  original  import  of  the  name,  they 
even  applied  it  to  expressions  which  did  not  refer 
to  persons,  but  to  things.     Thus,  the  historian,  in 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  97 

relating  the  charge  brought  against  Stephen,  ac- 
quaints us^^  that  they  set  up  false  ivitnesses^  which 
said^  This  man  ceaseth  not  to  speak  blasphemous 
words  against  this  holy  place,  and  the  law  ;  an  ap- 
plication of  the  word,  perhaps -till  then  unexam- 
pled. But  we  need  not  wonder  at  this  liberty, 
wl\en  we  consider,  that  the  perversion  of  the  term 
answered  for  them  a  double  purpose  ;  first,  it 
afforded  them  one  easy  expedient  for  rendering  a 
person,  whom  they  disliked,  odious  to  the  people, 
amongst  whom  the  very  suspicion  of  blasphemy 
excited  great  abhorrence  ;  secondly,  it  increased 
their  own  jurisdiction.  Blasphemy  was  a  capital 
crime,  the  jucfgment  whereof  was  in  the  sanhe- 
drim, of  whom  the  chief  priests,  and  some  of  the 
Scribes,  always  made  the  principal  part.  The 
farther  the  import  of  the  word  was  extended,  the 
more  cases  it  brought  under  their  cognizance,  and 
the  more  persons  into  their  power.  Hence  it 
proceeded,  that  the  word  blasphemy,  which  origi- 
nally meant  a  crime  no  less  than  maliciously 
reviling  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  was  at  length 
construed  to  imply  the  broaching  of  any  tenet,  or 
the  expressing  of  any  sentiment  (with  whatever 
view  it  was  done,)  which  did  not  quadrate  with 
the  reigning  doctrine.  For  that  doctrine,  being 
presupposed  to  be  the  infallible  will  of  God,  what- 
ever opposed  it  was  said,  by  implication,  to  re- 
vile its  Author.  Such  will  ever  be  the  case,  when 
the  principles  of  human  policy  are  grafted  upon 
religion. 

5-»  Acts,  vi.  13. 


98  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

§  15.  When  we  consider  this,  and  remark,  at 
the  same  time,  with  what  plainness  our  Lord  con- 
demned, in  many  particulars,   both  the  maxims, 
and  the  practice,  of  the  Pharisees,  we  cannot  be 
surprised  that,  on  more   occasions  than  one,  that 
vindictive   and  envious   sect  traduced  him  to  the 
people,  as  a  person  chargeable   with  this  infernal 
guilt.     Once,  indeed,  some  of  them  proceeded  so 
far  as  to  take  up  stones  to  stone  him  " :  for  that 
was  the  punishment  which  the  law  had  awarded 
against    blasphemers.       But   he   thought    proper 
then   to  elude  their  malice,  and,  by  the  answer  he 
gave  to  their  unmerited  reproach,  evidently  show- 
ed  that   their   application    of  the  term   was   un- 
scriptural  ^^       Those   who,    on    other   occasions, 
watched   our  Lord  to  entrap  him  in   his  words, 
seem  to  have  had  it  principally  in  view  to  extract 
either  blasphemy   or  treason  from  what  he  said. 
By  the  first,  they  could  expose  him  to  the  fury  of 
the  populace,  or,  perhaps,  subject  him  to  the  Jew- 
ish rulers  ;  and,  by  the  second,  render  him  ob- 
noxious to  the  Roman  procurator.     What  use  they 
made  of  both  articles  at  last,  is  known  to  every 
body.     Nor  let  it  be  imagined  that,  at  his  trial, 
the  circumstance,   apparently  slight,   of  the  high 
priest's  rending  his  clothes,  when  he  pronounced 
him  a  blasphemer,  an  example  which  must  have 
been  quickly  followed  by  the  whole  sanhedrim, 
and  all  within  hearing,  was  not  a  matter  of  the 
utmost  consequence,  for  effecting  their  malicious 

**  John,  X.  31.  33.  "  John,  x.  34,  35,  36. 


1..  n.J  DISSERTATIONS.  9d 

purpose.  We  have  reason  to  believe,  that  it  con- 
tributed not  a  little,  in  working  so  wonderful  a 
change  in  the  multitude,  and  in  bringing  them  to 
view  the  man  with  detestation,  to  whom  so  short 
while  before  they  were  almost  read}^  to  pay  di- 
vine honours. 

§  16.  But  here  it  may  be   asked,  *  Can  we  not 

*  then  say,  with  truth,  of  any  of  the  false  teachers, 

*  who  have  arisen  in  the  church,  that  they  vented 

*  blasphemies  ?'  To  affirm  that  we  cannot,  would, 
I  acknowledge,  be  to  err  in  the  opposite  extreme. 
Justin  Mart}  r  s^ys  of  Marcion  ",  that  he  taught 
many  to  blaspheme  the  Maker  of  the  world.  Now, 
it  is  impossible  to  deny  the  justice  of  this  charge, 
if  we  admit  the  truth  of  what  Irenseus  ^^,  and 
others,  affirm  concerning  that  bold  heresiarch,  to 
wit,  that  he  maintained,  that  the  Author  of  our 
being,  the  God  of  Israel,  who  gave  the  law  by 
Moses,  and  spoke  by  the  Prophets,  is  one  who  per- 
petrates injuries,  and  delights  in  war,  is  fickle  in 
his  opinions,  and  inconsistent  with  himself  If 
this  representation  of  Marcion's  doctrine  be  just, 
who  would  not  say  that  he  reviled  his  Creator,  and 
attempted  to  alienate  from  him  the  love  and  con- 
fidence of  his  creatures  ?  The  blasphemy  of  Rab- 
shakeh  was  aimed  only  against  the  power  of  God ; 
Marcion's  not  rso  much  against  his  power,  as 
against  his  wisdom  and  his  goodness.  Both  equal- 
ly manifested  an  intention  of  subverting  the  faith 
and  veneration  of  his  worshippers.  Now,  it  is 
only  what  can  be  called  a  direct  attack,  not  such 

57  Apol.  2.  58  Lib.  j.  c.  29. 


100  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

as  is  made  out  by  implication,  upon  the  perfec- 
tions of  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  and  what  clearly 
displays  the  intention  of  lessening  men's  reverence 
of  him,  that  is  blasphemy,  in  the  meaning  (I  say 
not  of  the  rabbles,  or  of  the  canonists,  but)  of  the 
sacred  code.  In  short,  such  false  and  injurious 
language,  and  only  such,  as,  when  applied  to  men, 
would  be  denominated  reviling,  abusing,  defaming, 
is,  when  applied  to  God  blasphemy.  The  same 
terms  in  the  original  tongues  are  used  for  both ; 
and  it  would  perhaps  have  been  better,  for  pre- 
venting mistakes,  that  in  modern  tongues  also,  the 
same  terms  were  employed.  Indeed,  if  we  can 
depend  on  the  justness  of  the  accounts  which 
remain  of  the  oldest  sectaries,  there  were  some 
who  went  greater  lengths  in  this  way  than  even 
Marcion. 

§  17.  Before  I  finish  this  topic,  it  will  naturally 
occur  to  inquire.  What  that  is,  in  particular,  which 
our  Lord  denominates  blasphemy  against  the  Holy 
Spirit  ^^  ?  It  is  foreign  from  my  present  purpose, 
to  enter  minutely  into  the  discussion  of  this  diffi- 
cult question.  Let  it  suffice  here  to  observe,  that 
this  blasphemy  is  certainly  not  of  the  constructive 
kind,  but  direct,  manifest,  and  malignant.  First, 
it  is  mentioned  as  comprehended  under  the  same 
genus  with  abuse  against  man,  a\id  contradistin- 
guished only  by  the  object.  Secondly,  it  is  fur- 
ther explained,  by  being  called  speaking  against, 
in  both  cases.     'Os  av  einri  loyov  xara  rov'viov 

59  Matth.  xii.  31,  32.     Mark,  iii.  28,  29.     Luke,  xii.' 10. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  101 

tov  av&ganov, — '  Og  5'av  sinif  xara  xov  nvevfiaros  xov 
'ayiov.  The  expressions  are  the  same,  in  effect, 
in  all  the  Evangelists  who  mention  it,  and  imply 
such  an  opposition  as  is  both  intentional  and  ma- 
levolent. This  cannot  have  been  the  case  of  all 
who  disbelieved  the  mission  of  Jesus,  and  even 
decried  his  miracles ;  many  of  whom,  we  have 
reason  to  think,  were  afterwards  converted  by  the 
Apostles.  But  it  is  not  impossible,  that  it  may 
have  been  the  wretched  case  of  some  who,  insti- 
gated by  worldly  ambition  and  avarice,  have  slan- 
dered what  they  knew  to  be  the  cause  of  God, 
and,  against  conviction,  reviled  his  work  as  the 
operation  of  evil  spirits. 

§  18.  A  LATE  writer  ^°  more  ingenious  than  ju- 
dicious, has,  after  making  some  just  remarks  on 
this  subject,  proceeded  so  far  as  to  maintain  that 
there  can  be  no  such  crime  as  blasphemy.  His 
argument  (by  substituting  defatnatmi  for  blasphe- 
my, defame  for  blaspheme,  and  man  for  God) 
serves  equally  to  prove  that  there  is  no  such 
crime  as  defamation,  and  stands  thus :  '  Defamation 
'  presupposes  malice;  where  there  is  malice,  there 
*  is  misapprehension.  Now  the  person  who,  mis- 
'  apprehending  -another,  defames  him,  does  no 
'  more  than  put  the  marl's  name,'  (I  use  the  au- 
thor's phraseology)  '  to  his  own  misapprehensions 
'  of  him.  This  is  so  far  from  speaking  evil  of  the 
.-  man,  that  it  is  not  speaking  of  him  at  all.  It  is 
'  only  speaking  evil  of  a  wild  idea,  of  a  creature  of 

^^  Independent  Whij,  No.  53. ' 
VOL.    lU  13 


102  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

'  the  imagination,  and  existing  nowhere  but  there".' 
From  this  clear  manner  of  reasoning,  the  following 
corollar}^,  very  comfortable  to  those  whom  the 
world  has  hitherto  misnamed  slanderers,  may  fair- 
ly be  deduced.  If  you  have  a  spite  against  any 
man,  you  may  freely  indulge  your  malevolence,  in 
saying  of  him  all  the  evil  3  ou  can  think  of.  That 
you  cannot  be  justly  charged  with  defamation,  is 
demonstrable.  If  all  that  you  say  be  true,  he  is 
not  injured  by  you,  and  therefore  you  are  no  de- 
tractor. If  the  Avhole  or  part  be  false,  what  is 
false  does  not  reach  him.  Your  abuse  in  that 
case  is  levelled  against  an  ideal  being,  a  chimera 
to  which  you  only  affix  his  name  (a  mere  trifle, 
for  a  name  is  but  a  sound,)  but  with  which  the 
man's  real  character  is  not  concerned.  There- 
fore, when  you  have  said  the  worst  that  malice 
and  resentment  cati  suggest,  you  are  not  charge- 
able with  defamation,  which  was  the  point  to  be 
proved.  Thus  the  argument  of  that  volatile  au- 
thor goes  further  to  emancipate  men  from  all  the 
restraints  of  reason  and  conscience  than,  I  believe, 

^1  That  the  reader  may  be  satisfied  that  I  do  not  wrong  this 
author,  I  shall  annex,  in  his  own  words,  part  of  his  reasoning 
concerning  bh^sphem3^  "•  As  it  is  a  crime  that  implies  malice 
"  against  God,  I  am  not  able  to  conceive  how  anj'  man  can 
"  commit  it.  A  man  who  knows  God,  cannot  speak  evil  of 
"  him.  And  a  man  who  knows  him  not,  and  reviles  him,  does 
"  therefore  revile  him,  because  he  knows  him  not.  He  there- 
"  fore  puts  the  name  of  God  to  his  own  misapprelTensions  of 
"God.  This  is  so  far  from  speaking  evil  of  the  Deity,  that 
"  it  is  not  speaking  of  the  Deity  at  all.  It  is  only  speaking 
"  evil  of  a  wild  idea,  of  a  creature  of  the  imagination,  and  ex- 
"  istinsr  nowhere  but  there." 


p.  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  103 

he  himself  was  aware.  He  only  intended  l)y  it, 
as  one  would  think,  to  release  us  from  the  fear  of 
God ;  it  is  equally  well  calculated  for  freeing  us 
from  all  regard  to  man.  Are  we.  from  this  to  form 
an  idea  of  the  libert},  both  sacred  and  civil,  of 
which  that  author  affected  to  be  considered  as  the 
patron  and  friend ;  and  of  the  deference  he  pro- 
fesses to  entertain  for  the  Scriptures  and  primitive 
Christianity  ?  I  hope  not ;  for  he  is  far  from 
being  at  all  times  consistent  with  himself.  Of 
the  many  evidences  which  might  be  brought  of 
this  charge,  one  is,  that  no  man  is  readier  than  he 
to  throw  the  irfiputation  of  blasphemy  on  those 
whose  opinions  differ  from  his  OAvn  ^^ 


^^  In  the  dedication  of  the  book  to  the  lower  house  of  convo- 
'  cation,  the  author  advises  them  to  clear  themselves  from  the 
imputation  of  maintaining  certain  ungodly  tenets,  by  exposing 
the  blasphemies  of  those  of  their  own  body  :  in  No.  23,  we  are 
told  that  false  zeal  talks  blasphemy  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  in 
No.  24,  that  persecutors  blasphemously  pretend  to  be  serving 
God  ;  and  in  No.  27,  that  it  is  a  kind  of  blasphemy  to  attempt  to 
persuade  people  that  God  takes  pleasure  in  vexing  his  crea- 
tures. More  examples  of  the  commission  of  this  impracticable 
crime  might  be  produced  from  that  author,  if  necessary.  V 


104  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 


PART  in. 


OF    SCHISM. 


The  next  term  I  proposed  to  examine  critically 
was  axictfia,  schism.  The  Greek  word  frequently 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  though  it  has  only 
once  been  rendered  schism  by  our  translators. 
However,  the  frequency  of  the  use  among  theolo- 
gians has  made  it  a  kind  of  technical  term  in 
relation  to  ecclesiastical  matters ;  and  the  way  it 
has  been  bandied,  as  a  term  of  ignominy,  from 
sect  to  sect  reciprocall}^,  makes  it  a  matter  of 
some  consequence  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  the 
genuine  meaning  it  bears  in  holy  writ.  In  order 
to  this,  let  us,  abstracting  alike  from  the  uncandid 
representations  of  all  zealous  party-men,  have  re- 
course to  the  oracles  of  truth,  the  source  of  light 
and  direction. 

§  2.  As  to  the  proper  acceptation  of  the  word 
a/Lafia,  when  applied  to  objects  merely  material, 
there  is  no  difference  of  sentiments  amongst  inter- 
preters. Every  one  admits  that,  it  ought  to  be 
rendered  rent,  breach,  or  separation.  In  this  sense 
it  occurs  in  the  Gospels,  as  where  our  Lord  says, 
JVo  man  putteth  a  piece  of  neio  cloth  to  an  old 
garment :  for  that  ivhich  is  put  in  to  fill  it  up^ 


p.  „,.]  DISSERTATIONS.  105 

taketh  from  the  garment,   and  the  rent  is  made 
worse^^.       Xeigov    ax'^^l^'^^    yLvnai.       The     same 
phrase  occurs  in  the  parallel   passage  in  Mark*^^ 
From  this  sense  it  is  transferred  by  metaphor  to 
things   incorporeal.      Thus  it  is  used  once   and 
again  by  the  Evangelist  John,  to   signify  a  differ- 
ence  in   opinion   expressed   in   woids.       Of  the 
contest  among  the  Jews,  concerning  Jesus,  some 
maintaining  that  he  was,  others  that  he  was  not, 
the   Messiah  ;  the  sacred  historian  says,  2';ift<?^a 
ovv  £v  TO  o%Xa  sysvsTo  Sl  avTov.      So  there  tvas  a 
division    amoiig    the   people    because    of  him^\ 
Here,  it  is  plain,  the  word  is  used  in  a  sense  per- 
fectly indifferent  ;  for,  it  was  neither  in  the  true 
opinion  supported  by   one   side,  nor  in  the  false 
opinion  supported  by  the  other,  that  the  schism  or 
,  division  lay,  but  in  the  opposition  of  these  two 
opinions.     In  this  sense  of  the  word,  there  would 
have  been  no  schism,  if  they  had  been  all  of  one 
opinion,  whether  it  had  been  the  true  opinion,  or 
the  false.     The   word   is   used   precisely   in   the 
same  signification  by  this  Apostle,  in  two  other 
places  of  his  Gospel  marked  in  the  margin  ^^ 

§  3.  But  it  is  not  barely  to  a  declared  differ- 
ence in  judgment,  that  even  the  metaphorical  use 
of  the  word  is  confined.  As  breach  or  rupture  is 
the  literal  import  of  it  in  our  language  ;  wherever 
these  words  may  be  figuratively  applied,  the  term 

fi*  Matth.  ix.  16.  «<  Mark,  ii.  21. 

e^  John,  vii.  43.  «^  John,  ix.  IG.  x.  19. 


106  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

tf/ttf^a  seems  likewise  capable   of  an  application. 
It  ins^ariably  presupposes  that  anfong  those  things 
whereof  it  is  affirmed,  there   subsisted  an  union 
formerly,  and  as  invariably  denotes  that  the  union 
subsists  no  longer.     In  this  manner  the  Apostle 
Paul  uses  the  word,  applying  it  to  a  particular 
church   or  Christian  congregation.     Thus  he  ad- 
jures the  Corinthians   by  the  name  of  the   Lord 
Jesus,  that  there  be  no  divisions  or  schisms  among 
them%  Iva  firf  r^  sv  vfiiv  axioiiaza  ;  and  in  another 
place  of  the  same  Epistle  ^^   he  tells  them,  I  hear 
that  there  are  divisions   or   schisms  among  you, 
aoiova  axiOfiaia  ev  vfiiv  vTzag^uv.     In  order  to  ob- 
tain a  proper  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  a  breach 
or  schism  in  this  application,  we  must  form  a  just 
notion  of  that  which  constituted  the  union  where- 
of the   schism   was   a  violation.     Now  the    great 
and  powerful   cement  which  united  the   souls  of 
Christians,  was  their  mutual  love.     Their  hearts^ 
in  the  emphatical  language  of  holy  writ,  were  knit 
together   in   love^^.     This  had   been  declared  by 
their   Master  to  be    the    distinmiishino;   badore  of 
their  profession.     By  this  shall  all  men  know  that 
ye   are    my   disciples,    if  ye    have    love    one    to 
another''^.     Their  partaking  of  the  same  baptism, 
their   professing   the    same   faith,   their   enjoying 
the  same  promises,  and  their  joining  in  the  same 
religious    service,    formed   a    connection    merely 
external   and  of  little  significance,  unless,  agree- 
ably to  the  Apostle's  expression  ^\  it  was  rooted 

"  1  Cor.  i.  10.  68  1  Cor.  xi.  18.  ^^  Col.  ii.  2. 

70  John,  xiii.  35.  ^i  Eph.  iii.  17. 


p.  in.]  DISSERTATIONS.  107 

and  grounded  in  love.  As  this,  therefore,  is  the 
great  criterion  of  the  Christian  character,  and  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  unity,  whatever  alien- 
ates the  affections  of  Christians  from  one  another, 
is  manifestly  subversive  of  both,  and  may  conse- 
quently, with  the  greatest  truth  and  energy,  be 
denominated  schism.  It  is  not  so  much  what 
makes  an  outward  distinction  or  separation 
(though  this  also  may  in  a  lower  degree  be  so 
denominated,)  as  what  produces  an  alienation  of 
the  heart,  which  constitutes  schism  in  the  sense  of 
the  Apostle  ;  for  this  strikes  directly  at  the  vitals 
of  Christianity.  \.  Indeed  both  the  evil  and  the 
danger  of  the  former,  that  is,  an  external  separa- 
tion, is  principall}^  to  be  estimated  from  its  influ- 
ence upon  the  latter,  that  is,  in  producing  an 
alienation  of  heart ;  for  it  is  in  the  union  of  affec- 
tion among  Christians,  that  the  spirit,  the  life, 
and  the  power,  of  religion,  are  principally  placed. 

§  4.  It  may  be  said.  Does  it  not  rather  appear, 
from  the  passage  first  quoted,  to  denote  such  a 
breach  of  that  visible  unity  in  the  outward  order 
settled  in  their  assemblies,  as  results  from  some 
jarring  in  their  religious  opinions,  and  by  conse- 
quence in  the  expressions  they  adopted  ?  This, 
I  own,  is  what  the  words  in  immediate  con- 
nection, considered  by  themselves,  would  natural- 
ly suggest.  /  beseech  yoii^  brethren^  that  ye  all 
speak  the  same  things  and  that  there  be  no  di- 
visions (schisms)  among  you.,  and  that  ye  be  per- 
fectly joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the 


108  PRELlMIiNARY  [d.  ix. 

same  judgment''^.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  a  cer- 
tain unanimity,  or  a  declared  aSsent  to  the  great 
articles  of  the  Christian  profession,  was  necessary 
in  every  one,  in  order  to  his  being  admitted  to, 
and  kept  in  the  communion  of,  the  church.  But 
then  it  must  be  allowed,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
those  articles  were  at  that  time,  few,  simple,  and 
perspicuous.  It  is  one  of  the  many  unhappy 
consequences  of  the  disputes  that  have  arisen 
in  the  church,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  these 
have  been  managed,  that  such  terms  of  communion 
have  since  been  multiplied,  in  ever}'^  part  of  the 
Christian  world,  and  not  a  little  perplexed  Avith 
metaphysical  subtleties,  and  scholastic  quibbles. 
Whether  this  evil  consequence  was,  in  its  nature, 
avoidable,  or,  if  it  was,  in  what  manner  it  might 
have  been  avoided,  are  questions,  though  import- 
ant, foreign  to  the  present  purpose.  Certain  it  is, 
however,  that  several  phrases  used  by  the  Apos- 
tles, in  relation  to  this  subject,  such  as  'oiiocpgoves, 
TO  avTo  (pgovovvTss,  and  some  others,  commonly 
understood  to  mean  unanimous  in  opinion,  denote, 
more  properly,  coinciding  in  afiection,  concurring 
in  love,  desire,  hatred,  and  aversion,  agreeably  to 
the  common  import  of  the  verb  cpgovav  both  in 
sacred  authors  and  in  profane,  which  is  more 
strictly  rendered  to  savour,  to  7'elish,  than  to  be 
of  opinion. 

§  5.  Further,  let  it  be   observed,  that  in  mat- 
ters whereby  the  essentials  of  the   faith  are  not 

"  1  Cor.  i.  10. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  109 

affected,  much  greater  indulgence  to  diversity  of 
opinion  was  given,  in  those  pure  and  primitive 
times,  than  has  been  allowed  since,  when  the  ex- 
ternals, or  the  form  of  religion  came  to  be  raised 
on  the  ruins  of  the  essentials,  or  the  power,  and  a 
supposed  correctness  of  judgment  made  of  great- 
er account  than  purity  of  heart.  In  the  apostolic 
age,  which  may  be  styled  the  reign  of  charity, 
their  mutual  forbearance  in  regard  to  such  dif- 
ferences, was  at  once  an  evidence,  and  an  exer- 
cise, of  this  divine  principle.  Hiin  that  is  iveak 
in  the  faith,  says  our  Apostle,  receive  ye,  but  not  to 
doubtful  dispuig,tions.  For  one  believeth  that  he 
may  eat  all  things  :  another  ivho  is  weak,  eateth 
herbs.  Let  not  him  that  eateth,  despise  him  that  eat- 
eth not ;  and  let  not  him  who  eateth  not,  judge  him 
that  eateth  ^^  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above 
another  :  another  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  As  to 
these  disputable  points,  let  every  man  be  fully  pe7'- 
siiaded  in  his  own  mind"*,  and,  as  far  as  he  himself 
is  concerned,  act  according  to  his  persuasion.  But 
he  does  not  permit  even  him  who  is  in  the  right, 
to  disturb  his  brother's  peace,  by  such  unimportant 
inquiries.  Hast  thou  faith  ?  says  he  ;  the  know- 
ledge and  conviction  of  the  truth  on  the  point  in 
question  ?  Have  it  to  thysef  before  God.  Happy 
is  he  ivho  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  thing 
ivhich  he  alloweth'^\  And  in  another  place,  Let 
us,   therefore,   as   many   as    be   perfect,    be    thus 

73  Rom.  xiv.  1,  2,  3.  74  Kom.  xiv.  5. 

75  Rom.  xiv.  22. 

VOL.    II.  14 


no  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

minded ;  and  if  in  any  thing  ye  be  otherwise 
minded,  God  shall  reveal  even^  this  unto  you. 
JVevertheless,  ivhereto  we  have  already  attained, 
let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let  us  mind  the  same 
thing  ^^.  We  are  to  remember,  that  as  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  so  neither  is 
it  logical  acuteness  in  distinction,  or  grammatical 
accuracy  of  expression;  but  it  is  righteousness, 
and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  he 
that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ,  is  acceptable  to 
God,  and  approved  of  men  ^^ 

§  6.  Now,  if  we  inquire,  by  an  examination  of 
the  context,  into  the  nature  of  those  differences 
among  the  Corinthians,  to  which  Paul  affixes  the 
name  ayiaiiaja,  nothing  is  more  certain,  than 
that  no  cause  of  difference  is  suggested,  Avhich 
has  any  the  least  relation  to  the  doctrines  of 
religion,  or  to  any  opinions  that  might  be  formed 
concerning  them.  The  fault  which  he  stigmatiz- 
.ed  with  that  odious  appellation,  consisted,  then, 
solely  in  an  undue  attachment  to  particular  per- 
sons, under  whom,  as  chiefs  or  leaders,  the  pfeople 
severally  ranked  themselves,  and  thus,  without 
making  separate  communions,  formed  distinctions 
among  themselves,  to  the  manifest  prejudice  of 
the  common  bond  of  charity,  classing  themselves 
under  different  heads.  JVoiv  this  I  say,  adds  the 
Apostle,  that  every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul, 
and  I  of  Jlpollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of 
Christ  '^     It  deserves  to  be  remarked,  that  of  the 

76  Phil.  iii.  15,  16.         '■^  Rom.  xiv.  17,  18.        '»  1  Cor.,  i.  12. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  1 1 1 

differences  among  the  Roman  converts,  concerning 
the  observance  of  days,  and  the  distinction  of 
meats,  which  we  should  think  more  material,  as 
they  more  nearly  affect  the  justness  of  religious 
sentiments,  and  the  purity  of  religious  practice, 
the  Apostle  makes  so  little  account,  that  he  will 
not  permit  them  to  harass  one  another  with  such 
questions ;  but  enjoins  them  to  allow  every  one  to 
follow  his  own  judgment ;  at  the  same  time  that 
he  is  greatly  alarmed  at  differences  among  the 
Corinthians,  in  which,  as  they  result  solely  from 
particular  attachments  and  personal  esteem,  neither 
the  faith  nor  the  practice  of  a  Christian  appears 
to  have  an  immediate  concern.  But  it  was  not 
without  reason  that  he  made  this  distinction.  The 
hurt  threatened  by  the  latter  was  directly  against 
that  extensive  love  commanded  by  the  Christian 
law ;  but  not  less  truly,  though  more  indirectly, 
against  the  Christian  doctrine  and  manners.  By 
attaching  themselves  strongly  to  human,  and  con- 
sequently fallible,  teachers  and  guides,  they  weak- 
ened the  tie  which  bound  them  to  the  only  divine 
guide  and  teacher,  the  Messiah,  and  therefore  to 
that  also  which  bound  them  all  one  to  another. 

§  7.  What  it  'was  that  gave  rise  to  such  dis- 
tinctions in  the  church  of  Corinth,  we  are  not  in- 
formed, nor  is  it  material  for  us  to  know.  From 
what  follows  in  the  Epistle,  it  is  not  improbable, 
that  they  might  have  thought  it  proper  in  this 
manner  to  range  themselves,  under  those  who  had 
been  the  instruments  of  their  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity, or  perhaps,  those  by  whom  they  had  been 


112  PRELIMINARY  [d.ix. 

baptized,  or  for  whom  they  had  contracted  a 
special  veneration.  It  is  evident,  however,  that 
these  petty  differences,  as  we  should  account 
them,  had  already  begun  to  produce  consequences 
unfriendly  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel ;  for  it  is  in 
this  point  of  view  solely  that  the  Apostle  con- 
siders them,  and  not  as  having  an  immediate  bad 
influence  on  its  doctrine.  Thus  resuming  the 
subject,  he  says.  Ye  are  yet  carnal ;  for  whereas 
there  is  among  you  envying  and  strife  and  di- 
visions, are  ye  not  carnal,  and  ivalk  as  men  ?  For 
ivhile  one  saith,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  another  I  am  of 
Apollos,  are  ye  not  carnal  ^^  ?  Thus  it  is  un- 
controvertible, in  the  first  place,  that  the  accusa- 
tion imports  that  the  Corinthians,  by  their  conduct, 
had  given  a  wound  to  charity,  and  not  that  they 
had  made  any  deviation  from  the  faith ;  and  in  the 
second  place,  that,  in  the  apostolical  acceptation 
of  the  word,  men  may  be  schismatics,  or  guilty  of 
schism,  by  such  an  alienation  of  affection  from 
their  brethren  as  violates  the  internal  union  sub- 
sisting in  the  hearts  of  Christians,  though  there  be 
neither  error  in  doctrine,  nor  separation  from  com- 
munion, and  consequently  no  violation  of  external 
unity  in  ceremonies  and  worship.  Faustus,  a  Ma- 
nichean  bishop  in  the  fourth  ceYitury  (however 
remote  from  truth  the  leading  principles  of  his 
party  were  on  more  important  articles,)  entertain- 
ed sentiments  on  this  subject  entirely  scriptural. 
"  Schisma,"  says  he,  "  nisi  fallor,  est  eadem  opi- 
"  nantem  atque   eodem  ritu  colentem  quo  cseteri, 

79  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  4. 


p.m.]  DISSERTATIONS.  113 

"  solo   congregationis  delectari   dissidio."     Faust. 
1.  XX.  C.  iii.  ap.  August. 

§  8.  After  so  clear  a  proof  of  the  import  of  the 
term,  if  it  should  be  thought  of  consequence  to  al- 
lege in   confirmation  what  must  be  acknowledged 
to  be   more  indirect,  you  ma}^  consider  the  only 
other  passage  in  which  the  term  is  used  in  the 
♦  New   Testament,   and  applied   metaphorically  to 
the  human  body.     In  the  same  Epistle,  the  Apos- 
tle having  shown  that  the  different  spiritual  gifts 
bestowed  on  Christians,  rendered  them  mutually 
subservient,  anc^.  made  all,  in  their  several  ways, 
harmoniously  contribute  to  the  good  of  the  Chris- 
tian community,  gives  a  beautiful  illustration  of 
this  doctrine  from  the  natural  body,  the  different 
functions  of  whose  members  admirably  conduce  to 
the  benefit  and  support  of  one  another,  and  to  the 
perfection   and   felicity    of  the    whole.     He    con- 
cludes in  these  words :   God  hath  tempered  the  body 
together,  having  given  more  abundant  honour  to 
that  part  which  lacked,  that  there    should  be  no 
schism  in  the  body,  Iva  [irf  tj  a/iafia  sv  to  aaiiaxi, 
but  that  the  members  should  have  the  same  care  one 
for  another :  and  ivhether  one  member  suffer,  all 
the  members   suffer  ivith   it,   or  one  member  be 
honoured,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it  ^^.     It  is 
obvious  that  the  word  schism  is  here  employed  to 
signify,  not  a  separation  from  the  body,  such  as  is 
made  by  amputation  or  fracture,  but  such  a  defect 
in  utility  and  congruity,  as  would  destroy  what  he 

80  1  Cor.  xii.  24,  25,  26. 


114  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

considers  as  the  mutual  sympathy  of  the  members, 
and  their  care  one  of  another. 

-  §  9.  As  to  the  distinctions  on  this  subject,  which 
in  after-times  obtained  among  theologians,  it  is 
proper  to  remark,  that  error  in  doctrine  was  not 
supposed  essential  to  the  notion  of  schism;  its 
distinguishing  badge  was  made  separation  from 
communion  in  religious  offices,  insomuch  that  the 
words  schismatic  and  separatist^  have  been  ac- 
counted synonymous.  By  this,  divines  commonly 
discriminate  schism  from  heresy^  the  essence  of 
which  last  is  represented  as  consisting  in  an  erro- 
neous opinion  obstinately  maintained,  concerning 
some  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity ;  and 
that  whether  it  be  accompanied  with  separation  in 
respect  of  the  ordinances  of  religion,  or  not.  We 
have  now  seen  that  the  former  definition  does  not 
quadrate  with  the  application  of  the  word  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  schism,  in  scriptural  use, 
is  one  thing,  and  schism,  in  ecclesiastical  use, 
another. 


I 


IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  115 


PART  IV. 


OF    HERESY. 


Let  us  now  inquire,  with  the  same  freedom  and 
impartiality,  into  the  scriptural  use  of  the  other 
term.  The  Greek  word  'aigsais,  which  properly 
imports  no  more  than  election,  or  choice,  was  com- 
monly employ edf  by  the  Hellenist  Jews,  in  our 
Saviour's  time,  when  the  people  were  much  di- 
vided in  their  religious  sentiments,  to  denote,  in 
general,  any  branch  of  the  division,  and  was  nearly 
equivalent  to  the  English  words,  class,  party,  sect. 
The  word  was  not,  in  its  earliest  acceptation, 
conceived  to  convey  any  reproach  in  it,  since  it 
was  indifferently  used,  either  of  a  party  approved, 
or  of  one  disapproved,  by  the  writer.  In  this  way 
it  occurs  several  times  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
where  it  is  always  (one  single  passage  excepted) 
rendered  sect.  We  hear  alike  of  the  sect  of  the 
Sadducees,  'aigsais  rcov  2^aS8ovxaLa}v  ^\  and  of  the 
sect  of  the  Pharisees,  ^aigeais,  rav  ^agiaaiav^^. 
In  both  places  the  term  is  adopted  by  the  histo- 
rian purely  for  distinction's  sake,  without  the  least 
appearance  of  intention  to  convey  either  praise,  or 
blame.  Nay,  on  one  occasion,  Paul,  in  the  de- 
fence he  made  for  himself  before  king  Agrippa, 

^'  Acts,  V.  17.  ^2  Act3,  XV.  5, 


116  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

where  it  was  manifestly  his  intention  to  exalt  the 
party  to  which  he  had  belonged,  and  to  give  their 
system  the  preference  to  ever}^  other  system  of 
Judaism,  both  in  soundness  of  doctrine,  and  purity 
of  morals,  expresses  himself  thus  :  My  manner  of 
life^from  my  youths  which  ivas  at  the  first  among 
mine  own  natioti  at  Jerusalem,  knoiv  all  the  Jews, 
tchich  knew  me  from  the  beginning,  if  they  would 
testify  :  that  after  the  most  straitest  sect  of  our  re- 
ligion, Tcaxa  Ti]v  aTcgi^BOxajiiv  'aigeaiv  jijs  ^yj^iExegas 
d-gtf  Gxeias,  I  lived  a  Pharisee  *^^ 

§  2.  There  is  only  one  passage  in  that  history, 
wherein  there  is  an  appearance  that  something 
reproachful  is  meant  to  be  conve3^ed  under  the 
name  'aigeaig.  It  is  in  the  accusation  of  Paul,  by 
the  orator  Tertullus,  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  before 
the  governor  Felix  ;  where  amongst  other  things, 
we  have  these  words  :  We  have  found  this  man 
a  pestilent  fellow,  a7id  a  mover  of  sedition  among 
all  the  JciDs  throughout  the  world,  and  a  ringleader 
of  the  sect  of  the  JVazareiies,  ngaToazaziiv  ra  xrjg 
Tcov  Natagaiov  ^aigaaBos  ^^.  I  should  not,  howev- 
er, have  imagined  that  any  part  of  the  obloquy 
la}^  in  the  application  of  the  word  last  mentioned, 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  notice  which  the  Apostle 
takes  of  it  in  his  answer.  But  this  I  confess  unto 
thee,  that  after  the  ivay  which  they  call  heresy,  'yv 
T^iyovaiv  "o.igEaiv,  so  worship  I  the  God  of  my 
fathers  ^\ 

83  Acts,  xxvi.  4,  5.  ^^  Acts,  sxiv.  5. 

85  Acts,  xxiv.  14.  • 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  117 

§  3.  Here,  by  the  way,  I  must  remark  a  great 
impropriety  in  the  English  translation,  though  in 
this,  I  acknowledge,  it  does  but  follow  the  Vul- 
gate. The  same  word  is  rendered  one  way  in 
the  charge  brought  against  the  prisoner,  and 
another  way  in  his  answer  for  himself.  The  con- 
sequence is  that,  though  nothing  can  be  more 
apposite  than  his  reply,  in  this  instance,  as  it 
stands  in  the  original ;  yet  nothing  can  appear 
more  foreign  than  this  passage,  in  the  tAvo  ver- 
sions above  mentioned.  The  Apostle  seems  to 
defend  himself  against  crimes,  of  which  he  is  not 
accused.  In  both  places,  therefore,  the  word 
ought  to  have  been  translated  in  the  same  man- 
ner, whether  heresy  or  sect.  In  my  judgment,  the 
last  term  is  the  only  proper  one  ;  for  the  word 
.heresy.,  in  the  modern  acceptation,  never  suits  the 
import  of  the  original  word,  as  used  in  Scripture. 
But,  when  one  attends  to  the  very  critical  circum- 
stances of  the  Apostle  at  this  time,  the  difficulty 
in  accounting  for  his  having  considered  it  as  a 
reproach  to  be  denominated  of  a  sect.,  disclaimed 
by  the  whole  nation,  instantly  vanishes.  Let  it 
be  remembered,  first,  that,  since  the  Jews  had 
fallen  under  the  power  of  the  Romans,  their 
ancient  national  religion  had  not  only  received  the 
sanction  of  the  civil  powers  for  the  continuance  cf 
its  establishment  in  Judea,  but  had  obtained  a 
toleration  in  other  parts  of  the  em})ire  ;  secondly, 
that  Paul  is  now  pleading  before  a  Roman  gover- 
nor, a  Pagan,  who  could  not  well  be  supposed  to 
know  much  of  the  Jewish  doctrine,  worship,  or 
controversies  ;    and   that  he   had  been   arraigned 

vol-  n.  15 


118  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix, 

by  the  rulers  of  his  own  nation,  as  belonging  to  a 
turbulent  and  upstart  sect  :  for  in  this  way  they 
considered  the  Christians,  whom  they  reproach- 
fully named  Nazarenes.  The  natural  conse- 
quence of  this  charge,  with  one  who  understood 
so  little  of  their  affairs  as  Felix,  was  to  make 
him  look  upon  the  prisoner  as  an  apostate  from 
Judaism,  and,  therefore,  as  not  entitled  to  be 
protected,  or  even  tolerated,  on  the  score  of 
religion.  Against  a  danger  of  this  kind,  it  was 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  our  Apostle  to  de- 
fend himself. 

§  4.  Accordingly,  when  he  enters  on  this  part 
of  the  charge,  how  solicitous  is  he  to  prove,  that 
his  belonging  to  that  sect,  did  not  imply  any 
defection  from  the  religion  of  his  ancestors ; 
and  thus  t6  prevent  any  mistaken  judgment,  on 
this  article  of  his  arraignment,  into  which  a  hea- 
then judge  must  have  otherwise  unavoidably 
fallen.  His  own  words  will,  to  the  attentive, 
supersede  all  argument  or  illustration  :  But  this 
I  confess  to  thee,  that  after  the  way  which  they 
call  a  sect,  so  ivorship  I ;  Whom  ?  No  new  divin- 
ity, but,  on  the  contrary,  the  God  of  our  fathers  : 
he  adds,  in  order  the  more  effectually  to  remove 
every  suspicion  of  apostacy.  Believing  all  things 
which  are  ivritten  in  the  laio  and  the  prophets  ; 
and  having  the  same  hope  towards  God,  which 
they  themselves  also  entertain,  that  there  'shall  be  a 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  of 
the   unjust  ^\       Nothing    could   have   been   more 

^'^  Acts,  xxiv.  14,  15. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  119 

ridiculous,  than  for  the  Apostle  seriously  to  de- 
fend his  doctrine  against  the  charge  of  hetero- 
doxy, before  an  idolater  and  polytheist,  who 
regarded  both  him  and  his  accusers  as  supersti- 
tious fools,  and  consequently,  as,  in  this  respect, 
precisely  on  a  footing  ;  but  it  was  entirely  per- 
tinent in  him  to  evince,  before  a  Roman  magis- 
trate, that  his  faith  and  mode  of  worship,  however 
much  traduced  by  his  enemies,  were  neither 
essentially  different  from,  nor  any  way  subversive 
•  of,  that  religion  which  the  senate  and  people  of 
Rome  had  solemnly  engaged  to  protect ;  and  that 
therefore  he  p^as  not  to  be  treated  as  an  apostate, 
as  his  adversaries,  by  that  article  of  accusation, 
that  he  was  of  the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes,  showed 
evidently  that  they  desired  he  should.  Thus  the 
Apostle,  with  great  address,  refutes  the  charge  of 
having  revolted  from  the  religious  institutions  of 
Moses,  and,  at  the  same  time,  is  so  far  from  dis- 
claiming, that  he  glories  in  the  name  of  a  follower 
of  Christ. 

§  5.  There  is  only  one  other  place,  in  this  his- 
tory, in  which  the  word  occurs,  namely,  where  the 
Jews  at  Rome  (for  whom  Paul  had  sent  on  his 
arrival,)  speaking  of  the  Christian  society,  address 
him  in  these  words  :  Btit  we  desire  to  hear  of  thee 
what  thou  thinkest  ;  for  as  concerning  this  sect, 
T€QL  (X£v  yag  tj^s  aigsasas  zavTr^g,  ive  knoiv  that  it  is 
everyivhere  spoken  against^\  There  cannot  be  a 
question,  here,  of  the  propriety  of  rendering  the 

^  Acts,  xxviii.  22. 


120  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

word  diQsais,  sect,  a  term  of  a  middle  nature,  not 
necessarily  implying  either  good  or  bad.  For,  as 
to  the  disposition  wherein  those  Jews  were  at  this 
time,  it  is  plain,  they  did  not  think  themselves 
qualified  to  pronounce  either  for  or  against  it,  till 
they  should  give  Paul,  who  patronised  it,  a  full 
hearing.  This  they  were  willing  to  do ;  and, 
therefore,  only  acquainted  him,  in  general,  that 
they  found  it  to  be  a  party  that  was  universally 
decried.  Thus,  in  the  historical  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  we  find  the  word  aigeais  employed  to  ' 
denote  sect  or  party,  indiscriminately,  whether 
good  or  bad.  It  has  no  necessary  reference  to 
opinions,  true  or  false.  Certain  it  is,  that  sects 
are  commonly,  not  always,  caused  by  difference  in 
opinion,  but  the  term  is  expressive  of  the  effect 
only,  not  of  the  cause. 

§  6.  Ii\  order  to  prevent  mistakes,  I  shall  here 
further  observe,  that  the  word  sect,  among  the 
Jews,  was  not,  in  its  application,  entirely  coinci- 
dent with  the  same  term  as  applied  by  Christians 
to  the  subdivisions  subsisting  among'  themselves. 
We,  if  I  mistake  not,  invariably  use  it  of  those 
who  form  separate  communions,  and  do  not  asso- 
ciate with  one  another  in  religious  worship  and 
ceremonies.  Thus  we  call  Papists,  Lutherans, 
Calvinists,  different  sects,  not  so  much  on  account 
of  their  differences  in  opinion,  as  because  they 
have  established  to  themselves  different  fraterni- 
ties, to  which,  in  what  regards  public  worship, 
they  confine  themselves,   the   several   denomina- 


p. 


IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  121 


tions  above  mentioned  having  no  intercommunity 
with  one  another  in  sacred  matters.  High  church 
and  low  church  we  call  only  parties,  because  they 
have  not  formed  separate  communions.  Great 
and  known  differences  in  opinion,  when  followed 
by  no  external  breach  in  the  society,  are  not  con- 
sidered with  us  as  constituting  distinct  sects, 
though  their  differences  in  opinion  may  give  rise 
to  mutual  aversion.  Now,  in  the  Jewish  sects  (if 
we  except  the  Samaritans,)  there  were  no  sepa- 
rate communities  erected.  The  same  temple,  and 
the  same  synagogues,  were  attended  alike  by 
Pharisees  atjd  by  Sadducees.  Nay,  there  were 
often  of  both  denominations  in  the  Sanhedrim, 
and  even  in  the  priesthood. 

Another  difference  was,  that  the  name  of  the 
sect  was  not  applied  to  all  the  people  who 
adopted  the  same  opinions,  but  solely  to  the  men 
of  eminence  among  them  who  were  considered  as 
the  leaders  and  instructers  of  the  party.  The 
much  greater  part  of  the  nation,  nay,  the  whole 
populace,  received  implicitly  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees,  yet  Josephus  never  styles  the  common 
people  Pharisees^  but  only  followers  and  admirers 
of  the  Pharisees.  Nay,  this  distinction  appears 
sufficiently  from  sacred  writ.  The  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  says  our  Lord^,  sit  in  Moses^  seat. 
This  could  not  have  been  said  so  generally,  if 
any  thing  further  had  been  meant  by  Pharisees, 
but  the  teachers  and  guides  of  the  party.     Again, 

88  Matth.  xxiii.  2. 


122  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

when  the  officers  sent  by  the  chief  priests  to 
apprehend  our  Lord,  returned  without  bringing 
him,  and  excused  themselves  by  saying,  J^ever 
man  spake  like  this  man  ;  they  were  asked.  Have 
any  of  the  riders,  or  of  the  Pharisees,  believed 
on  him^^  ?  Now,  in  our  way  of  using  words, 
we  should  be  apt  to  say,  that  all  his  adher- 
ents were  of  the  Pharisees ;  for  the  Pharisaic- 
al was  the  only  popular  doctrine.  But  it  was 
not  to  the  followers,  but  to  the  leaders,  that 
the  name  of  the  sect  was  applied.  Here,  how- 
ever, we  must  except  the  Essenes,  who,  as 
they  all,  of  whatever  rank  originally,  entered 
into  a  solemn  engagement,  whereby  they  con- 
fined themselves  to  a  peculiar  mode  of  life,  which, 
in  a  great  measure,  secluded  them  from  the  rest 
of  mankind,  were  considered  almost  in  the  same 
manner  as  We  do  the  Benedictines  or  Domin- 
icans, or  any  order  of  monks  or  friars  among  the 
Romanists. 

Josephus  in  the  account  he  has  given  of  the 
Jewish  sects,  considers  them  all  as  parties  who 
supported  different  systems  of  philosophy,  and  has 
been  not  a  little  censured  for  this,  by  some  critics. 
But,  as  things  were  understood  then,  this  manner 
of  considering  them  was  not  unnatural.  Theolo- 
gy, morality,  and  questions  regarding  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  and  a  future  state,  were  principal 
branches   of  their   philosophy.       "  Philosophia," 

^'  John,  vii.  48. 


F.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  12S 

says  Cicero '",  "  nos  primum  ad  deorum  ciiltum, 
"  deinde  ad  jus  hominum  quod  situm  est  in  gene- 
"  ris  humani  societate,  turn  ad  modestiam,  magni- 
"  tudinemque  animi  erudivit :  eademque  ab  animo 
"  tanquam  ab  oculis,  caliginem  dispulit,  ut  omnia 
"  supera,  infera,  prima,  ultima,  media,  videremus." 
Besides,  as  it  was  only  men  of  eminence  qualified 
to  guide  and  instruct  the  people,  who  were  digni- 
fied with  the  title,  either  of  Pharisee  or  of  Saddu- 
cee,  there  was  nothing  so  analogous  among  the 
Pagans,  as  their  different  sects  of  philosophers, 
the  Stoics,  the  Academics,  and  the  Epicureans,  to 
whom  also  thp  general  term  "aigsais  was  commonly 
applied.  Epiphanius,  a  Christian  writer  of  the 
fourth  century,  from  the  same  view  of  things  with 
Josephus,  reckons  among  the  'aigscesis,  sects,  or 
heresies,  if  you  please  to  call  them  so,  which  arose 
among  the  Greeks,  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
these  classes  of  philosophers,  the  Stoics,  the  Pla- 
tonists,  the  Pythagoreans,  and  the  Epicureajis.  Of 
this  writer  it  may  also  be  remarked,  that  in  the 
first  part  of  his  work,  he  evidently  uses  the  word 
'aigedts  in  all  the  latitude  in  which  it  had  been 
employed  by  the  sacred  writers,  as  signifying  sect 
or  party  of  any  kind,  and  without  any  note  of  cen- 
sure. Otherwise  he  would  never  have  numbered 
Judaism,  whose  origin  he  derives  from  the  com- 
mand which  God  gave  to  Abraham  to  circumcise 
all  the  males  of  his  family,  among  the  original 
heresies.  Thus,  in  laying  down  the  plan  of  his 
work,  he  sa3'S,  £v  to  ow  ngazco  ^i^Xia  ngaiov  lo- 

90  Tuscul.  Quasst.  lib.  I. 


124  .     PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

fiov  'aiQSdsi?  iixooiv,  'at  blglv  aids,  [So(,g[3agL0fios, 
cxv&idfxos,  eXhjvLO^LOs^  lovdaioixog,  x.  r.  's.  ^K  This 
only  by  the  way. 

§  7.  But,  it  may  be  asked,  is  not  the  accepta- 
tion of  the  word,  in  the  Epistles,  different  from 
what  it  has  been  observed  to  be  in  the  historical 
books  of  the  New  Testament  ?  Is  it  not,  in  the 
former,  invariably  used  in  a  bad  sense,  as  denot- 
ing something  wrong,  and  blameable  ?  That  in 
those,  indeed,  it  always  denotes  something  faulty, 
or  even  criminal,  I  am  far  from  disputing :  never- 
theless, the  acceptation  is  not  materially  different 
from  that  in  which  it  always  occurs  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  In  order  to  remove  the  apparent 
inconsistency  in  what  has  been  now  advanced,  let 
it  be  observed,  that  the  word  sect  has  always 
something  relative  in  it ;  and  therefore,  in  differ- 
ent applications,  though  the  general  import  of  the 
term  be  the  same,  it  will  convey  a  favourable  idea, 
or  an  unfavourable,  according  to  the  particular 
relation  it  bears.  I  explain  myself  by  examples. 
The  word  sect  may  be  used  along  with  the  proper 
name,  purely  by  way  of  distinction  from  another 
party,  of  a  different  name ;  in  which  case  the 
word  is  not  understood  to  convey  either  praise 
or  blame.  Of  this  we  have  examples  in  the 
phrases  above  quoted,  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees, 

^'  This  import  of  the  word  heresij  in  Epiphanius  ha^  not  es- 
caped the  observation  of  the  author  of  Dictionnaire  Historiqne 
des  auteurs  Ecclcsiastiques,  who  says,  "  Par  le  mot  d'  heresies, 
"  St.  Epiphane  entend  une  secte  ou  une  societe  d'  hommes 
"  qui  out,  sur  la  religion,  des  sentimens  particuliers." 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  1 25 

the  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes. 
In  this  way  we  may  speak  of  a  strict  sect,  or  a  lax 
sect,  or  even  of  a  good  sect,  or  a  bad  sect.  If  any 
thing  reprehensible  or  commendable  be  suggested, 
it  is  not  suggested  by  the  term  sect,  digsais,  but 
by  the  words  construed  witli  it.  Again,  it  may 
be  applied  to  a  formed  party  in  a  community,  con- 
sidered in  reference  to  the  whole.  If  the  com- 
munity, of  which  the  sect  is  a  part,  be  of  such  a 
nature  as  not  to  admit  this  subdivision,  without 
impairing  and  corrupting  its  constitution,  to 
charge  them  with  splitting  into  sects,  or  forming 
parties,  is  to  charge  them  with  corruption,  in  what 
is  most  essential  to  them  as  a  society.  Hence 
arises  all  the  difference  there  is  in  the  word,  as 
used  in  the  history,  and  as  used  in  the  Epistles  of 
Peter  and  Paul ;  for  these  are  the  only  Apostles 
who  employ  it.  In  the  history,  the  reference  is 
always  of  the  first  kind ;  in  the  Epistles,  always 
of  the  second.  In  these,  the  Apostles  address 
themselves  only  to  Christians,  and  are  not  speak- 
ing of  sects  without  the  church,  but  either  repre- 
hending them  for,  or  warning  them  against,  form- 
ing sects  among  themselves,  to  the  prejudice  of 
charity,  to  the  production  of  much  mischief  within 
their  community,  and  of  great  scandal  to  the 
unconverted  world  without.  So  Paul's  words  to 
the  Corinthians  were  understood  by  Chrysostom, 
and  other  ancient  expositors.  In  both  applica- 
tions, however,  the  radical  import  of  the  word  is 
the  same. 

VOL.   II.  16 


126  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

§  8.  But  even  here,  it  has  no  necessary  refer- 
ence to  doctrine,  true  or  false.  Let  us  attend  to 
the  first  passage,  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Epis- 
tles, and  we  shall  be  fully  satisfied  of  the  truth  of 
this  remark.  It  follows  one  quoted  in  Part  Third 
of  this  Dissertation.  For  there  must  be  also  here- 
sies among  you  ^^.  ^si  yag  xai  digeasLs  sv  vfiiv 
eivat.  Ye  must  also  have  sects  amongst  you.  It 
is  plain,  that  what  he  reproves  under  the  name 
<j;(i(yfia,Ta,  in  the  former  verse,  is  in  effect  the  same 
with  what  he  here  denominates  digsosis.  Now, 
the  term  axiofia,  I  have  shown  already  to  have 
there  no  relation  to  any  erroneous  tenet,  but  sole- 
ly to  undue  regards  to  some  individual  teachers, 
to  the  prejudice  of  others,  and  of  the  common 
cause.  In  another  passage  of  this  Epistle,  where, 
speaking  of  the  very  same  reprehensible  conduct, 
he  uses  the  words  strife  and  factions,  sqls  xai  Si^o- 
aTadiaL^\  words  nearly  coincident  with  axia^iaxa 
jtai  digsaHs  -,  his  whole  aim  in  these  reprehensions 
is  well  expressed  in  these  words,  that  ye  might 
learn  in  us  (that  is,  in  himself  and  ApoUos,  whom 
he  had  named,  for  example's  sake,)  not  to  thiiik  of 
men  above  that  which  is  written,  above  what  Scrip- 
ture warrants,  that  no  one  of  you  be  -  puffed 
up  for  one,  make  your  boast  of  one,  against 
another  ^^. 

§  9.  It  may  be  said.  Does  not  this  explanation 
represent  the  two  words  schism  and  heresy  as  sy- 
nonymous ?     That  there  is  a  great  affinity  in  their 

92  1  Cor.  xi.  19.  S3  1  Cor.  iii.  3.  94  j  Cor.  iv.  6. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  127 

significations  is  manifest ;  but  they  are  not  con- 
vertible terms.  I  do  not  find  that  the  word  a/ia^a 
is  ever  applied  in  holy  writ  to  a  formed  party,  to 
which  the  word  'aigscfig  is  commonly  applied.  I 
understand  them  in  the  Epistles  of  this  Apostle, 
as  expressive  of  different  degrees  of  the  same  evil. 
An  undue  attachment  to  one  part,  and  a  conse- 
quent alienation  of  affection  from  another  part,  of 
the  Christian  community,  comes  under  the  de- 
nomination of  a/La^ia.  When  this  disposition  has 
proceeded  so  far  as  to  produce  an  actual  party  or 
faction  among  them,  this  effect  is  termed  '^aigedLs. 
And  it  has  rbeen  remarked,  that  even  this  term 
was  at  that  time  currently  applied,  when  matters 
had  not  come  to  an  open  rupture  and  separation, 
in  point  of  communion.  There  was  no  appear- 
ance of  this,  at  the  time  referred  to,  among  the 
Corinthians.  And  even  in  Judaism,  the  Pharisees 
and  the  Sadducees,  the  two  principal  sects,  nay, 
the  only  sects  mentioned  in  the  Gospel,  and 
(which  is  still  more  extraordinary)  more  wide- 
ly different  in  their  religious  sentiments  than 
any  two  Christian  sects,  still  joined  together,  as 
was  but  just  now  observed,  in  all  th^  offices  of  re- 
ligious service,  and  had  neither  different  priests 
and  ministers,  nor  separate  places  for  social  wor- 
ship, the  reading  of  the  law,  or  the  observance  of 
the  ordinances. 

§  10.  It  will  perhaps  be  said  that,  in  the  use  at 
least  which  the  Apostle  Peter  has  made  of  this 
word,  it  must  be  understood  to  include  some  gross 
errors,  subversive  of  the  very  foundations  of  the 


128  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

faith.  The  words  in  the  common  version  are, 
But  there  were  false  prophets  also  among  the 
people^  even  as  there  shall  be  false  teachers  among 
you,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies, 
even  defiying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bring 
upon  themselves  swift  destruction  ^^  That  the 
Apostle  in  this  passage  foretells  that  there  will 
arise  such  'aigaasig,  sects  or  factions,  as  will  be 
artfully  and  surreptitiously  formed  by  teachers 
who  will  entertain  such  pernicious  doctrines,  is 
most  certain ;  but  there  is  not  the  least  appear- 
ance that  this  last  character  was  meant  to  be  im- 
plied in  the  word  'aigsasig.  So  far  from  it,  that 
this  character  is  subjoined  as  additional  information 
concerning,  not  the  people  seduced,  or  the  party, 
but  the  seducing  teachers ;  for  it  is  of  them  only 
(though  one  would  judge  differently  from  our 
version)  that  what  is  contained  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  verse  is  affirmed.  The  words  in  the  original 
are,  £v  "vfiiv  saovxai  yjsvSoSidaaxaXoi,  "oltlve?  na- 
gsLoa^ovdiv  'aigeasis  anaXuag  Tcai  tov  ayogaaavxa 
avTovs  SsdTtoirfv  agvovfisvoi,  eTtayovres  "^savzois  ra- 
Xtvr^v  anaXHav.  Observe  it  is  agvovfisvoi  and  fTra- 
yovzss,  in  thfe  masculine  gender  and  nominative 
case,  agreeing  with  yjevSoStSaaxaXoi,  not  agvovfievas 
and  STtayovaas  in  the  feminine  gender  and  accusa- 
tive case,  agreeing  with  'aigsosis.  Again,  if  the 
word  'aigsasis  did  not  imply  the  effect  produced, 
sects,  or  factions,  but  the  opinions  taught,  whether 
true  or  false,  which  are  often,  not  always,  the 
secret  spring  of  division,  he  would  probably  have 

95  2  Peter,  ii.  1.  ' 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  129 

expressed  himself  in  this  manner,  yj£v8o8i8aatxakoi 
'oiTLvss  StSa^ovai  'agsastg  avtcaXsias,  who  will  teach 
damnable,  or  rather  destructive,  heresies  ;  for 
doctrine  of  every  kind,  sound  and  unsound,  true 
and  false,  is  properly  said  to  be  taught ;  but  neith- 
er here,  nor  any  where  else  in  Scripture,  I  may 
safely  add,  nor  in  any  of  the  writings  of  the  two 
first  centuries,  do  we  ever  find  the  word  '^aigsceig 
construed  with  SiSaaxa,  xr^gvaao),  or  any  word  of 
like  import,  or  an  opinion,  true  or  false,  denomi- 
nated 'aigsais.  There  are,  therefore,  two  distinct 
and  separate  evils  in  those  false  teachers  of  which 
the  Apostle  ♦liere  gives  warning.  One  is,  their 
making  division,  by  forming  to  themselves  sects 
or  parties  of  adherents  ;  the  other  is,  the  destruc- 
tive principles  the}'^  will  entertain,  and  doubtless, 
as  they  find  occasion,  disseminate  among  their 
votaries. 

§  11.  The  only  other  passage  in  which  the  word 
'aigsais  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  is  where 
Paul  numbers  'aigsasis,  sects,  among  the  works  of 
the  flesh  ^^  and  very  properly  subjoins  them  to 
SixocfTaaiai,  factions,  as  the  word  ought  to  be  ren- 
dered, according  to  the  sense  in  which  the  Apostle 
always  uses  it.  Such  distinctions  and  divisions 
among  themselves,  he  well  knew,  could  not  fail  to 
alienate  affection  and  infuse  animosity.  Hence 
we  may  learn  to  understand  the  admonition  of  the 
Apostle,  ^  man  that  is  a  heretic,  aigsTixov  av&ga- 
Ttov,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition  reject, 

96  Gal.  V.  20. 


130  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

knowing  that  he  that  is  stich,  is  subverted  and  sin- 
neth,  being  condemned  of  himself  ^\     It  is  plain, 
from  the  character  here  given,  as  well  as  from  the 
genius  of  the  language,  that  the  word  'aigsTixos 
in  this  place  does  not  mean  a  member  of  an  'aigsaig 
or  sect,  who  may  be  unconscious  of  any  fault,  and 
so  is  not  equivalent  to  our  word  sectary ;  much 
less  does  it  answer  to  the  English  word  heretic^ 
which  always  implies  one  who  entertains  opinions 
in  religion   not   only   erroneous,   but   pernicious; 
whereas  we  have  shown  that  the  word  digsais,  in 
scriptural  use,  has  no  necessary  connection  with 
opinion  at  all.     Its  immediate  connection  is  with 
division  or  dissension,  as  it  is  thereby  that  sects 
and  parties  are  formed,    '^lqstixos  av&ganos,  must 
therefore  mean  one  who  is  the  founder  of  a  sect, 
or  at  least  has  the  disposition  to  create  ^aigsasis,  or 
sects,  in  the  community,  and  may  properly  be  ren-- 
dered   a  factious   man.      This   version   perfectly 
coincides  with  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  suits  the 
uniform  import  of  the  term  digeaig,  from  which  it  is 
derived.     The  admonition  here   given  to  Titus  is 
the  same,  though  differently  expressed,  with  what 
he  had  given  to  the  Romans,  when  he  said,  Mark 
them  which  cause  divisions,  dL^oaxaaias  itoLowjas, 
make  parties  or  factions,  arid  avoid  them^^.     As 
far  down  indeed  as  the   fifth   century,  and  even 
lower,  error  alone,  however  gross,  was  not  con- 
sidered  as    sufficient   to   warrant   the    charge    of 
heresy.     Malignity,  or  perverseness  of  disposition, 
was    held   essential   to   this   crime.      Hence   the 

97  Tit.  iii.  10,  11.  ^  Rom.  xvi.  17.    • 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  131 

famous  adage  of  Augustine,  "  Errare  possum,  hae- 
"  reticus  esse  nolo ;"  which  plainly  implies  that 
no  error  in  judgment,  on  any  article,  of  what  im- 
portance soever,  can  make  a  man  a  heretic,  where 
there  is  not  pravity  of  will.  .  To  this  sentiment 
even  the  schoolmen  have  shown  regard  in  their 
definitions.  "  Heresy,"  say  they,  "  is  an  opinion 
"  maintained  with  obstinacy  against  the  doctrine 
"  of  the  church."  But  if  we  examine  a  little  their 
reasoning  on  the  subject,  w^e  shall  quickly  find  the 
qualifying  phrase,  maintained  with  obstinacy,  to  be 
mere  words  which  add  nothing  to  the  sense :  for 
if  what  they  account  the  church  have  declared 
against  the  oj5inion,  a  man's  obstinacy  is  conclud- 
ed from  barely  maintaining  the  opinion,  in  what 
way  soever  he  maintain  it,  or  from  what  motives 
soever  he  be  actuated.  Thus  mere  mistake  is 
made  at  length  to  incur  the  reproach  originally 
levelled  against  an  aspiring  factious  temper,  which 
would  sacrifice  the  dearest  interests  of  society  to 
its  own  ambition. 

§  12.  I  CANNOT  omit  taking  notice  here  hy  the 
way,  that  the  late  Dr.  Foster,  an  eminent  English 
dissenting  minister,  in  a  sermon  he  preached  on 
this  subject,  has,  in  my  opinion,  quite  mistaken 
the  import  of  the  term.  He  had  the  discernment 
to  discover  that  the  characters  annexed  would  not 
suit  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word  heretic ; 
yet  he  was  so  far  misled  by  that  acceptation,  as  to 
think  that  error  in  doctrine  must  be  included  as 
part  of  the  description,  and  therefore  defined  a 


132  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

heretic  in  the  Apostle's  sense,  "  a  person  who,  to 
"  make  himself  considerable,  propagates  false  and 
"  pernicious  doctrine,  knowing  it  to  be  such." 
Agreeably  to  this  notion,  the  anonymous  English 
translator  renders  with  his  usual  freedom  'afiagTU- 
v£L,  av  avToxazaxgiTo?,  knoivs  in  his  own  coiiscience 
that  his  tenets  are  Jalse.  To  Foster's  explanation 
there  are  insuperable  objections.  First,  it  is  not 
agreeable  to  the  rules  of  criticism,  to  assign,  with- 
out any  evidence  from  use,  a  meaning  to  a  con- 
crete term  which  does  not  suit  the  sense  of  the 
abstract.  "^ALgecSLs  is  the  abstract,  "^aLg&TLxos  the 
concrete.  If  'aigectig  could  be  shown,  in  one  sin- 
gle instance,  to  mean  the  profession  and  propaga- 
tion of  opinions  not  believed  by  him  who  professes 
and  propagates  them,  I  should  admit  that  'aigszLTcos 
might  denote  the  professor  or  propagator  of  such 
opinions.  But  it  is  not  pretended  that  'aigeais  in 
any  use,  scriptural,  classical,  or  ecclesiastical,  ever 
bore  that  meaning :  there  is  therefore  a  strong 
probability  against  the  sense  given  by  that  author 
to  the  word  'aigeTixos.  Secondly,  this  word, 
though  it  occurs  but  once  in  Scripture,  is  very 
common  in  ancient  Christian  writers ;  but  has 
never  been  said,  in  any  one  of  them,  to  bear  the 
meaning  which  the  Doctor  has  here  fixed  upon 
it.  Thirdly,  the  apostolical  precept,  in  this  way, 
explained,  is  of  little  or  no  use.  Who  can  know 
w^hether  a  man's  belief  in  the  opinions  professed 
by  him,  be  sincere  or  hypocritical  ?  Titus,  j^ou 
may  say,  had  the  gift  of  discerning  spirits,  and 
therefore  might  know.  Was,  then,  the  precept  after 
his  lifetime,  or,  even,  after  the  ceasing  of  miracu- 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  133 

lous  powers,  to  be  of  no  service  to  the  church  ? 
This  I  think  incredible,  especially  as  there  is  no 
other  direction  in  the  chapter,  or  even  in  the 
Epistle,  which  requires  a  supernatural  gift  to 
enable  men  to  follow.  To  what  purpose  enjoin 
us  to  avoid  a  heretic,  if  it  be  impossible  without  a 
miracle  to  know  him  ?  In  fine,  though  I  would  not 
say  that  such  a  species  of  hypocrisy  as  Foster 
makes  essential  to  the  character,  has  never  ap- 
peared, I  am  persuaded  it  very  rarely  appears. 
It  is  the  natural  tendency  of  vanity  and  ambition 
to  make  a  man  exert  himself  in  gaining  proselytes 
to  his  own  notions,  however  triflino;,  and  however 
rashly  taken  up.  But  it  is  not  a  natural  effect  of 
this  passion  to  be  zealous  in  promoting  opinions 
which  the  promoter  does  not  believe,  and  to  the 
propagation  of  which  he  has  no  previous  induce- 
ment from  interest.  It  is  sufficient  to  vindicate 
the  application  of  the  term  avToxaTaTcgijos,  or 
self-condemned,  that  a  factious  or  turbulent  temper, 
like  any  other  vicious  disposition,  can  never  be 
attended  with  peace  of  mind,  but,  in  spite  of  all 
the  influence  of  self-deceit,  which  is  not  greater 
in  regard  to  this  than  in  regard  to  other  vices, 
must,  for  the  mortal  wounds  it  gives  to  peace  and 
love,  often  be  disquieted  by  the  stings  of  con- 
science. In  short,  the  'aigsTcxos,  when  that  term 
is  applied  to  a  person  professing  Christianity,  is 
the  man  who,  either  from  pride,  or  from  motives 
of  ambition  or  interest,  is  led  to  violate  these  im- 
portant precepts  of  our  Lord,  T/M£f?  ds  ^tj  xXt^Ot^ts 
'^a/3/3f  'sLs  yag  saiiv  'vfiav  'o  Sidaaxakos,  'o  XgtGzos' 

VOL.    II.  17 


134  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

xa&rfy7^T7^s,  o  XgiOTos  :  which  I  render  thus  :  But 
as  for  you,  assume  not  the  title  of  rabbi ;  for  ye 
have  only  one  teacher,  the  Messiah:  neither  as- 
sume the  title  of  leaders,  for  ye  have  only  one 
leader,  the  Messiah  ^^ 

§  13.  It  deserves  further  to  be  remarked,  that, 
in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  after  the  finishing 
of  the  canon,  the  word  'aigsTixos  was  not  always 
limited  (as  the  word  heretic  is  in  modern  use)  to 
those  who,  under  some  form  or  other,  profess 
Christianity.  We  at  present  invariably  distinguish 
the  heretic  from  the  infidel.  The  first  is  a  cor- 
rupter of  the  Christian  doctrine,  of  which  he  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  believer  and  a  friend ;  the  second  a 
declared  unbeliever  of  that  doctrine,  and  conse- 
quently an  enemy  :  whereas,  in  the  times  I  speak 
of,  the  head  of  a  faction  in  religion,  or  in  iethics 
(for  the  term  seems  not  to  have  been  applied  at 
first  to  the  inferior  members,)  the  founder,  or  at 
least  the  principal  promoter  of  a  sect  or  party, 
whether  within  or  without  the  church;  that  is, 
whether  of  those  who  called  themselves  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  or  of  those  who  openly  denied 
him,  was  indiscriminately  termed  'aigsTixos. 

The  not  attending  to  this  difference  in  the  an- 
cient application  of  the  word,  has  given  rise  to 
some  blunders  and  apparent  contradictions  in  ec- 
clesiastic history ;  in  consequence  of  which,  the 
early   writers   have   been    unjustly  charged   with 

S9  Matth,  xxiii.  8.  10 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  135 

confusion  and  inconsistency  in  their  accounts  of 
things ;  when,  in  fact,  the  blunders  imputed  to 
them  by  more  modern  authors,  have  arisen  solely 
from  an  ignorance  of  their  language.  We  confine 
their  words  by  an  usage  of  our  own,  which,  though 
it  came  gradually  to  obtain  some  ages  afterwards, 
did  not  obtain  in  their  time.  Hence  Dositheus, 
Simon  Magus,  Menander,  and  some  others,  are 
commonly  ranked  among  the  ancient  heretics ; 
though  nothing  can  be  more  evident,  from  the  ac- 
counts given  by  the  most  early  writers  who  so  de- 
nominate them,  than  that  they  were  denyers  of 
Jesus  Christ  jn  every  sense,  and  avowed  opposers 
to  the  Gospel.  Dositheus  gave  himself  out  ^°°,  to 
his  countrymen,  the  Samaritans,  for  the  Messiah 
promised  by  Moses.  Simon  Magus,  as  we  learn 
from  holy  writ  ^°\  was  baptized ;  but  that,  after 
the  rebuke  which  he  received  from  Peter,  in- 
stead of  repenting,  he  apostatized,  the  uniform 
voice  of  antiquity  puts  beyond  a  question.  Ori- 
gen  says  expressly  ^°^  "  The  Simonians  by  no 
"  means  acknowledge  Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God ; 
V  on  the  contrary,  they  call  Simon  the  power  of 
"  God."  Accordingly,  they  were  never  confound- 
ed with  the  Christians,  in  the  time  of  persecution, 
or  involved  with  them  in  any  trouble  or  dan- 
ger *°'.  Justin  Martyr  is  another  evidence  of  the 
same  thing  ^°^ ;  as  is  also  IrensBUS,  in  the  account 

joo  Orig.  adv.  Cels.  lib.  I.  loi  Acts,  viii.  13. 

102  OvSaficog   tov  Ir^dovv    6uoXoym6i    vtov    Qeov   Zificoviai'ot^ 
aXXa  dvvafiiv  6eov  Xeyov6i  tov  SiUiova.     Orig'.  adv.  Cels.  lib.  V. 
los  Orig.  adv.  Cels.  lib.  VI. 
104  Apol.  2<i»  Dialog,  cum  Tryphone. 


136  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

which,  in  his  treatise  against  heresies,  he  gives  ^°* 
of  Simon  and  his  disciple  Menander.  So  is  like- 
wise Epiphanius.  From  them  all  it  appears  mani- 
festly, that  the  above-named  persons  were  so  far 
from  being,  in  any  sense,  followers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
that  they  presumed  to  arrogate  to  themselves,  his 
distinguishing  titles  and  prerogatives,  and  might 
therefore  be  more  justly  called  Antichrists  than 
Christians.  The  like  may  be  said  of  some  other 
ancient  sects  which,  through  the  same  mistake  of 
the  import  of  the  word,  are  commonly  ranked 
among  the  heresies  which  arose  in  the  church. 
Such  were  the  Ophites,  of  whom  Origen  acquaints 
us,  that  they  were  so  far  from  being  Christians,  that 
our  Lord  was  reviled  by  them  as  much  as  by 
Celsus,  and  that  they  never  admitted  any  one  into 
their  society,  till  he  had  vented  curses  against 
Jesus  Christ  ^°'. 

Mosheim,  sensible  of  the  impropriety  of  class- 
ing the  declared  enemies  of  Christ  among  the 
heretics,  as  the  word  is  now  universally  applied, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  afraid  of  appearing  to  con- 
tradict the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  three  first 
centuries,  acknowledges  that  they  cannot  be  suita- 
bly ranked  with  those  sectaries  who  sprang  up 
within  the  church,  and  apologizes,  merely  from 
the  example  of  some  moderns  who  thought  as 
he  did,  for  his  not  considering  those  ancient  party- 

'     *°^  Adv.  Haereses,  lib.  I.  cap.  xx.  xxi. 

106  Ocpiavoi  xaXovfievoi  rodovTOV  a7iodtov6L  tov  airai  Xgi6Tia- 
voi,  'tx)6zE  ovx  eXuTTOv  KelCov  xarrjyogstv  avzovg  tov  IiqCov. 
Kat  [17]  Tigoregov  jigodce^OuL  nva  £7ic  to  CvtedgLOT  iavzojv,  sav 
fir]  agaCx^r^TUL  xaza  tov  Irfiov.     Adver.  Cels.  lib.  VI. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  137 

leaders  in  the  same  light  wherein  the  early  eccle- 
siastic authors,  as  he  imagines,  had  considered 
them.  But  he  has  not  said  any  thing  to  account 
for  so  glaring  an  inaccuracy,  not  of  one  or  two, 
but  of  all  the  primitive  writers  who  have  taken 
notice  of  those  sects.  For  even  those  who  deny 
that  they  were  Christians,  call  them  heretics  ^^^. 
Now,  I  will  take  upon  me  to  say,  that  though  this, 

107  ti  Quotquot  tribus  prioribus  saeculis  Simonis  Magi  memine- 
"  runt,  etsi  haereticorum  eum  familiam  ducere  jubent,  per  ea 
"  tamen  quae  de  eo  referunt,  haereticorum  ordine  excludunt, 
"  et  inter  Christianae  religionis  hostes  collocant.  Origenes 
"  Simonianos  dis§,rtissime  ex  Christianis  sectis  exturbat,  eosque 
"  non  lesum  Christum,  sed  Simonem  colere  narrat.  Cum  hoc 
"  caeteri  omnes,  alii  Claris  verbis,  alii  sententiis,  quas  Simoni 
"  tribuunt,  consentiunt :  quae  quidem  sententias  ejus  sunt  generis, 
"  ut  nulli  conveniant  quam  homini  Christo  longissime  se  prae- 
"  ferenti,  et  divini  legati  dignitatem  sibimet  ipsi  arroganti. 
"  Hinc  Simoniani  etiam,  quod  Origenes  et  Justinus  Martyr 
"  praster  alios  testantur,  quum  Christiani  quotidianis  periculis 
"  expositi  essent,  nullis  molestiis  et  injuriis  afiiciebantur :  Chris- 
"  TUM  enim  eos  detestari,  publice  notum  erat.  Sic  ego  primus, 
"  nisi  fallor,  quum  ante  viginti  annos  de  Simone  sentirem,  erant, 
"  quibus  periculosum  et  nefas  videbatur,  tot  sanctorum  virorum, 
"  qui  Simonem  haereticorum  omnium  patrem  fecerunt,  fidem  in 
"  disceptationem  vocare,  tot  saeculoram  auctoritatem  contem- 
"  nere.  Verum  sensim  plures  haec  sententia  patronos,  per 
"  ipsam  evidentiam  suam  sibi  acquisivit.  Et  non  ita  pridem 
"  tantum  potuit  apud  Jos.  Augustinum  Orsi,  quern  summo  cum 
"  applausu  ipsius  Pontificis  Maximi  Romae  Historiam  Ecclesiasti- 
"  cam  Italico  sermone  scribere  notum  est,  ut  earn  approbaret." 
Moshemius.  De  Rebus  Christianis  ante  Constantinum  Alasmim 
Commentarii.  Saiculum  primum,  §  Ixv.  No.  3.  The  words  in 
the  text,  to  which  the  preceding  note  refers,  are,  "  Toti  hsere- 
"  ticorum  agmini,  maxime  cohorti  gnosticae,  omnes  veteris  ec- 
"  clesiae  doctores  praeponunt  Simonem  Magum. — Omnia  quas  de 


138  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

in  one  single  writer,  might  be  the  effect  of  over- 
sight, it  is  morally  impossible  that,  in  so  many,  it 
should  be  accounted  for  otherwise  than  by  sup- 
posing that  their  sense  of  the  word  '^aigsriJcog  did 
not  coincide  with  ours ;  and  that  it  was  therefore 
no  blunder  in  them,  that  they  did  not  employ 
their  words  according  to  an  usage  which  came  to 
be  established  long  after  their  time.  I  am  indeed 
surprised,  that  a  man  of  Mosheim's  critical  sagaci- 
ty, as  well  as  profound  knowledge  of  Christian 
antiquity,  did  not  perceive  that  this  was  the  only 
reasonable  solution  of  the  matter.  But  what  might 
sometimes  be  thought  the  most  obvious  truth,  is 
not  always  the  first  taken  notice  of  Now,  I  can- 
not help  considering  the  easy  manner  in  which 
this  account  removes  the  difficulty,  as  no  small  evi- 
dence of  the  explanation  of  the  word  in  scriptural 
use,  which  has  been  given  above.  To  observe  the 
gradual  alterations  which  arise  in  the  meanings 
of  words,  as  it  is  a  point  of  some  nicety,  is  also 
of  great  consequence  in  criticism ;  and  often 
proves  a  powerful  means  both  of  fixing  the  date 
of  genuine  writings,  and  of  detecting  the  supposi- 
titious. 

§  14.  I  SHALL  observe,  in  passing,  that  the  want 
of  due  attention  to  this  circumstance  has,  in  anoth- 

"  SiMONE  memoriae  ipsi  prodiderunf,  manifestum  facinnt,  eum 
"  non  in  corruptoriim  religionis  Christianae,  id  est,  haereticorum, 
"  sed  inf'ensissimorum  ejus  hostium  numero  ponendum  esse, 
"  qui  et  ipsum  Christum  maledictis  insectabatur,  et  progredienti 
''  rei  Christianae  quae  poterat,  impedimenta  objiciebat." 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  139 

er  instance,  greatly  contributed  to  several  errors, 
in  relation  to  Christian  antiquities,  and  particular- 
ly, to  the  multiplication  of  the  primitive  martyrs, 
far  beyond  the  limits  of  probability.     The  Greek 
word  fiagxvg,  though  signifying  no  more,  originally, 
than  witness^  in  which  sense  it  is  always  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  came,  by  degrees,  in  eccle- 
siastical use,  to  be  considerably  restrained  in  its 
signification.      The  phrase  6t  fxagivges  tov  Itfoov, 
the  ivitnesses  of  Jesus,  was,  at  first,  in  the  church, 
applied,  by  way   of  eminence,  only  to  the  Apos- 
tles.     The    reality    of   this    application,  as    well 
as  the  grounds   of  it,  we  learn  from  the  Acts  ^°^. 
Afterwards,  it  was  extended  to  include  all  those 
who,  for  their  public   testimony  to  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  especially  when  emitted  before  mag- 
istrates and  judges,  were  sufferers  in  the  cause, 
whether  by  death  or  by  banishment,  or  in  any  other 
way.     Lastly,  the  name  martyr  (for  then  the  word 
was  adopted  into  other  languages)  became  appro- 
priated to    those   who   suffered    death   in   conse- 
quence of  their  testimony :  the  term  ofioXoyrfjrfs, 
confessor,  being,  for  distinction's  sake,  assigned  to 
those  witnesses  who,  though  they  suffered  in  their 
persons,  liberty,  or  goods,  did  not  lose  their  lives 
in  the  cause.     Now,  several  later  writers,  in  in- 
terpreting the  ancients,  have  been  misled  by  the 

108  Acts,  i.  8.  22.  ii.  32.  iii.  15.  v.  32.  x.  39,  xxii.  15.  xxvi.  16. 
The  last  two  passages  quoted  relate  to  Paul,  who,  by  being  de- 
signed of  God  a  witness  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  all  men,  was  under- 
stood to  be  received  into  the  apostleship,  and  into  the  society 
of  the  twelve. 


140  PRELIMINARY  [d.  ix. 

usage  of  their  own  time;  and  have  understood 
them  as  speaking  of  those  who  died  for  the  name 
of  Jesus,  when  they  spoke  only  of  those  who 
openly  attested  his  miracles  and  mission,  agreeably 
to  the  primitive  and  simple  meaning  of  the  word 
fiagxvg.  Of  this  Mosheim  has  justly  taken  notice 
in  the  work  above  quoted.  I  have  here  only  ob- 
served it,  by  the  way,  for  the  sake  of  illustration  ; 
for,  as  to  the  sense  wherein  the  word  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  no  doubt  seems  ever  to  have 
arisen  ^"^ 

^*^)^  "  Ipsa  vocabuli  martyr  ambiguitas  apud  homines  impe- 
"  ritos  voluntatem  gignere  potuit  fabulas  de  tragico  eorum 
"•  [apostolorum]  exitu  cogitandi.  Martyr  Graecorum  sermone 
"  qiiemlibet  testem  signiticat.  Sacro  vero  Christianorum  ser- 
"  mone  idem  nomen  eminentiore  sensu  testem  Christi  sive  ho- 
"  minem  deslgnat,  qui  moriendo  testari  voluit,  spem  omnem 
"  suam  in  Christo  positam  esse.  Priori  sensu  apostoli  ab  ipso 
"  Christo  /xagrvgeg  nominantur,  et  ipsi  eodem  vocabulo  mu- 
"  neris  sui  naluram  explicant.  Fieri  vero  facile  potuit,  ^it 
"  indocti  homines  ad  hasc .  sacri  codicis  dicta  posteriorem  voca- 
"  buli  Martyr  significationem  transferrent,  et  temere  sibi  prop- 
"  terea  persuaderent,  Apostolos  inter  eos  poni  debere,  quos 
"  excellentiori  sensu  Christiani  Martyres  appeljare  solebant." 
Saec.  prim.  §  xvi.  No.  Our  historian  is  here,  from  the  ambi- 
guity of  the  word,  accounting  only  for  the  alleged  niartyrdom 
of  all  the  Apostles  except  John.  But  every  body  who  reflects 
will  be  sensible,  that  the  same  mistake  must  have  contributed 
to  the  increase  of  the  number  in  other  instances.  For  even  in 
apostolical  times,  others  than  the  Apostles,  though  more  rarely, 
were  called  witnesses.  Stephen  and  Antipas  are  so  denominated 
in  sacred  writ.  And  as  both  these  were  put  to  death  for  their 
testimony,  this  has  probably  given  rise  in  after-times  to  the 
appropriation  of  the  name  witness  or  7nartyr,  to  those  who  suf- 
fered death  in  the  cause. 


r.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  141 

§  15.  I  SHALL  conclude,  with  adding  to  the 
observations  on  the  words  schism  and  heresy,  that 
how  much  soever  of  a  schismatical  or  heretical 
spirit,  in  the  apostolic  sense  of  the  terms,  may 
have  contributed  to  the  formation  of  the  different 
sects  into  which  the  Christian  world  is  at  present 
divided  ;  no  person  who,  in  the  spirit  of  candour 
and  charity,  adheres  to  that  which,  to  the  best  of 
his  judgment,  is  right,  though,  in  this  opinion,  he 
should  be  mistaken,  is,  in  the  scriptural  sense, 
either  schismatic  or  heretic  ;  and  that  he,  on  the 
contrary,  whatever  sect  he  belong  to,  is  more  en- 
titled to  these  odious  appellations,  who  is  most 
apt  to  throw  the  imputation  upon  others.  Both 
terms,  for  they  denote  only  different  degrees  of 
the  same  bad  qualit}'^,  always  indicate  a  disposition 
and  practice  unfriendly  to  peace,  harmony,  and 
love. 


VOL.  n.  16 -/-If 

3^ 


Bimtvt^tion  Hit  ffi^rntfi. 


The  chief  Things  to  be  attended  to  in  Translating. — A  com- 
parative View  of  the  opposite  Methods  taken  by  Translators 
of  Holy  Writ, 

PART  I. 

THE    THINGS    TO    BE    ATTENDED    TO    IN    TRANSLATING. 

To  translate  has  been  thought,  by  some,  a  very 
easy  matter  to  one  who  understands  tolerably 
the  language  from  which,  and  has  made  some 
proficiency  in  the  language  into  which,  the  trans- 
lation is  to  be  made.  To  translate  well  is,  how- 
ever, in  my  opinion,  a  task  of  more  difficulty 
than  is  commonly  imagined.  That  we  may  be 
the  better  able  to  judge  in  this  question,  let  us 
consider  what  a  translator,  who  would  do  justice 
to  his  author,  and  his  subject,  has  to  perform. 
The  first  thing,  without  doubt,  which  claims  his 
attention,  is  to  give  a  just  representation  of  the 
sense  of  the  original.  This,  it  must  be  acknoAv- 
ledged,  is  the  most  essential  of  all.  The  second 
thing  is,  to  convey  into  his  version,  as  much  as 
possible,  in  a  consistency  with  the  genius  of  the 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  143 

language  which  he  writes,  the  author's  spirit  and 
manner,  and,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  the  very 
character  of  his  style.  The  third  and  last  thing 
is,  to  take  care,  that  the  version  have,  at  least,  so 
far  the  quality  of  an  original  performance,  as  to 
appear  natural  and  easy,  such  as  shall  give  no 
handle  to  the  critic  to  charge  the  translator  with 
applying  words  improperly,  or  in  a  meaning  not 
warranted  by  use,  or  combining  them  in  a  way 
which  renders  the  sense  obscure,  and  the  con- 
struction ungrammatical,  or  even  harsh. 

§  2.  Now,  Jo  adjust  matters  so  as,  in  a  consid- 
erable degree,  to  attain  all  these  objects,  will  be 
found,  upon  inquiry,  not  a  little  arduous,  even  to 
men  who  are  well  acquainted  with  the  two  lan- 
guages, and  have  great  command  of  words.  In 
pursuit  of  one  of  the  ends  above  mentioned,  we 
are  often  in  danger  of  losing  sight  totally  of 
another  :  nay,  on  some  occasions,  it  will  appear 
impossible  to  attain  one,  without  sacrificing  both 
the  others.  It  may  happen,  that  I  cannot  do  jus- 
tice to  the  sense,  without  frequent  recourse  to  cir- 
cumlocutions ;  for  the  words  of  no  language  what- 
ever will,  at  all  times,  exactly  correspond  with 
those  of  another.  Yet,  by  this  method,  a  writer 
whose  manner  is  concise,  simple,  and  energetic,  is 
exhibited,  in  the  translation,  as  employing  a  style 
which  is  at  once  diffuse,  complex,  and  languid. 
Again,  in  endeavouring  to  exhibit  the  author's 
manner,  and  to  confine  myself,  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible, to  the  same  number  of  words,  and  the  like 
turn  of  expression,  I  may  very  imperfectly  render 


144  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

his  sense,  relating  obscurely,  ambiguousl}^,  and 
even  improperly,  what  is  expressed  with  great 
propriety  and  perspicuity  in  the  original.  And, 
in  regard  to  the  third  abject  mentioned,  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  when  the  two  languages  differ  very 
much  in  their  genius  and  structure,  it  must  be 
exceedingly  difficult  for  a  translator  to  render 
this  end  perfectly  compatible  with  the  other 
two.  It  will  perhaps  be  said,  that  this  is  of  less 
importance,  as  it  seems  solely  to  regard  the 
quality  of  the  work,  as  a  performance  in  the 
translator's  language,  whereas  the  other  two 
regard  the  work  only  as  an  exhibition  of  the 
original.  I  admit  that  this  is  an  object  inferior  to 
the  other  two  ;  I  meant  it  should  be  understood 
so,  by  mentioning  it  last.  Yet  even  this  is  by  no 
means  so  unimportant  as  some  would  imagine. 
That  a  writing  be  perspicuous  in  any  language, 
much  depends  on  the  observance  of  propriety  ; 
and  the  beauty  of  the  work  (at  least  as  far  as 
purity  is  concerned)  contributes  not  a  little  to  its 
utility.  What  is  well  written,  or  well  said,  is 
always  more  attended  to,  better  understood,  and 
longer  remembered,  than  what  is  improperly, 
weakly,  or  awkwardly,  expressed. 

§  3.  Now,  if  translation  is  in  general  attended 
with  so  much  difficulty,  what  must  we  think  of 
the  chance  of  success  which  a  translator  has, 
when  the  subject  is  of  so  great  importance,  that 
an  uncommon  degree  of  attention  to  all  the  above 
mentioned  objects,  will  be  exacted  of  him  ;  and 
when  the  difference,    in    point    of  idiom,  of  the 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  145 

language  from  which,  and  of  that  into  which  the 
version  is  made,  is  as  great,  perhaps,  as  we  have 
any  example  of.  For,  in  translating  the  New 
Testament  into  English,  it  is  not  to  the  Greek 
idiom,  nor  to  the  Oriental,  that  we  are  required  to 
adapt  our  own,  but  to  a  certain  combination  of 
both ;  often,  rather,  to  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldaic 
idioms,  involved  in  Greek  words  and  syntax.  The 
analogy  and  prevailing  usage  in  Greek,  will,  if  we 
be  not  on  our  guard,  sometimes  mislead  us.  On 
the  contrary,  these  are  sometimes  safe  and  proper 
guides.  But,  without  a  considerable  acquaintance 
with  both,  it  will  be  impossible  to  determine, 
when  we  ought  to  be  directed  by  the  one,  and 
when  by  the  other. 

§  4.  There  are  two  extremes  in  translating, 
which  are  commonly  taken  notice  of  by  those 
who  examine  this  subject  critically  ;  from  one 
extreme,  we  derive  what  is  called  a  close  and 
literal,  from  the  other,  a  loose  and  free  transla- 
tion. Each  has  its  advocates.  But,  though  the 
latter  kind  is  most  patronised,  when  the  subject 
is  a  performance  merely  human,  the  general 
sentiments,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  collect  them, 
seem  rather  to  favour  the  former,  when  the  sub- 
ject is  any  part  of  holy  writ.  And  this  differ- 
ence appears  to  proceed  from  a  very  laudable 
principle,  that  we  are  not  entitled  to  use  so  much 
freedom  with  the  dictates  of  inspiration,  as  with 
the  works  of  a  fellow-creature.  It  often  happens, 
however,  on  such  general  topics,  when  no  particu- 
lar version  is  referred  to  as  an  example  of  excess 


146  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

on  one  side,  or  on  the  other,  that  people  agree 
in  words,  when  their  opinions  differ,  and  differ  in 
words,  when  their  opinions  agree.  For,  I  may 
consider  a  translation  as  close,  which  another 
would  denominate  free,  or  as  free,  which  another 
would  denominate  close.  Indeed,  I  imagine  that, 
in  the  best  sense  of  the  words,  a  good  translation 
ought  to  have  both  these  qualities.  To  avoid  all 
ambiguity,  therefore,  I  shall  call  one  extreme  lite- 
ral, as  manifesting  a  greater  attention  to  the  letter 
than  to  the  meaning  ;  the  other  loose,  as  implying 
under  it,  not  liberty,  but  licentiousness.  In  regard 
even  to  literal  translations,  there  may  be  so 
many  differences  in  degree,  that,  without  speci- 
fying, it  is  in  vain  to  argue,  or  to  hope  to  lay 
down  any  principles  that  will  prove  entirely  sat- 
isfactory.    ^/^ 

3J 


PART  II. 

STRICTURES    ON    ARIAS    MONTANUS. 

Among  the  Latin  translations  of  Scripture,  there- 
fore, for  I  shall  confine  myself  to  these  in  this 
Dissertation,  let  us  select  jlrias  Montanus  for  an 
example  of  the  literal.  His  version  of  both  Tes- 
taments is  very  generally  known,  and  commonly 
printed  along  with  the  original,  not  in  separate 
columns,    but,    for    the    greater    benefit   of   the 


p.  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  147 

learner,  interlined.  This  work  of  Arias,  of  all 
that  I  know,  goes  the  farthest  in  this  way,  being 
precisely  on  the  model  of  the  Jewish  translations, 
not  so  much  of  the  Septuagint,  though  the  Septua- 
gint  certainly  exceeds  in  this  respect,  as  on  the 
model  of  Aquila,  which,  from  the  fragments  that 
still  remain  of  that  version,  appears  to  have  been 
servilely  literal,  a  mere  metaphrase.  Arias,  there- 
fore, is  a  fit  example  of  what  may  be  expected 
in  this  mode  of  translating. 

§  2.  Now,  that  we  may  proceed  more  methodi- 
cally in  our  ^examination,  let  us  inquire  how  far 
every  one  of  the  three  ends  in  translating,  above 
mentioned,  is  answered  by  this  version,  or  can  be 
answered  by  a  version  constructed  on  the  same 
plan.  The  first  and  principal  end  is  to  give  a  just 
representation  of  the  sense  of  the  original.  '  But 
'  how,'  it  may  be  asked, '  can  a  translator  fail  of 

*  attaining  this  end,  who  never  wanders  from  the 

*  path  marked  out  to    him ;    who  does  not,  like 

*  others,  turn  aside  for  a  moment,  to  pluck  flowers 

*  by  the  way,  wherewith  to  garnish   his  perform- 

*  ance ;  who  is,  on  the  contrary,  always  found  in 

*  his  author's  tr^ck ;  in  short,  who  has  it  as  his 
'  sole  object,  to  give  you,  in  the  words  of  another 
'  language,  exactly  what  his  author  saj^s,  and  in 
'  the  order  and  manner  wherein  he  says  it,  and,'  I 
had  almost  added  (for  this,  too,  is  his  aim,  though 
not  always  attainable,)  '  not  one    word  more    or 

*  less  than  he  says  ?''    However  he  might  fail,  in 


148  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

respect  of  the  other  ends  mentioned,  one  would 
be  apt  to  think,  he  must  certainly  succeed  in  con- 
veying the  sentiments  of  his  author.  Yet,  upon 
trial,  we  find  that,  in  no  point  whatever  does  the 
literal  translator  fail  more  remarkably,  than  in 
this,  of  exhibiting  the  sense.  Nor  will  this  be 
found  so  unaccountable,  upon  reflection,  as,  on  a 
superficial  view,  it  may  appear.  Were  the  words 
of  the  one  language  exactly  correspondent  to  those 
of  the  other,  in  meaning  and  extent ;  were  the 
modes  of  combining  the  words  in  both,  entirely 
similar,  and  the  grammatical  or  customary  ar- 
rangement, the  same;  and  were  the  idioms  and 
phrases  resulting  thence,  perfectly  equivalent, 
such  a  conclusion  might  reasonably  be  deduced  : 
but,  when  all  the  material  circumstances  are  near- 
ly the  reverse,  as  is  certainly  the  case  of  Hebrew, 
compared  with  Latin ;  when  the  greater  part  of 
the  words  of  one,  are  far  from  corresponding  ac- 
curately, either  in  meaning  or  in  extent,  to  those 
of  the  other;  when  the  construction  is  dissimilar, 
and  the  idioms,  resulting  from  the  like  combina- 
tions of  corresponding  words,  by  no  means  equiva- 
lent, there  is  the  greatest  probability  that  an  in- 
terpreter, of  this  stamp,  will  often  exhibit  "to  his 
readers  what  has  no  meaning  at  all,  and  some- 
times a  meaning  ver}^  different  from,  or  perhaps 
opposite  to,  that  of  his  author. 

§  3.  I  SHALL,  from  the  aforesaid  translation, 
briefly  illustrate  what  I  have  advanced ;  and  that, 
first,  in  words,  next,  in  phrases  or  idioms.     I  had 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  149 

occasion,  in  a  former  Dissertation  \  to  take  notice 
of  a  pretty  numerous  class  of  words  which,  in  no 
two  languages  whatever,  are  found  perfectly  to 
correspond,  though  in  those  tongues  wherein  there 
is  a  greater  affinity,  they  come  nearer  to  suit  each 
other,  than  in  those  tongues  wherein  the  affinity  is 
less.  In  regard  to  such,  I  observed,  that  the 
translator's  only  possible  method  of  rendering 
them  justly,  is  by  attending  to  the  scope  of  the 
author,  as  discovered  by  the  context,  and  choosing 
such  a  term  in  the  language  which  he  writes,  as 
suits  best  the  original  term,  in  the  particular  situa- 
tion in  which  he  finds  it. 

r 

§  4.  But,  this  is  far  from  being  the  method  of 
the  literal  translator.  The  defenders  of  this  man- 
ner, would,  if  possible,  have  nothing  subjected 
to  the  judgment  of  the  interpreter,  but  have 
every  thing  determined  by  general  and  mechani- 
cal rules.  Hence,  they  insist,  above  all  things,  on 
preserving  uniformity,  and  rendering  the  same 
word  in  the  original,  wherever  it  occurs,  or,  how- 
ever it  is  connected,  by  the  same  word  in  the 
version.  And;  as  much  the  greater  part  of  the 
words,  not  of  one  tongue  only,  but  of  every 
tongue,  are  equivocal,  and  have  more  significations 
than  one,  they  have  adopted  these  two  rules  for 
determining  their  choice,  among  the  diffiirent 
meanings  of  which  the  term  is  susceptible.  The 
first  is,  to  adopt  the  meaning,  wherever  it  is  dis- 
coverable, to  which  etymology  points,  though  in 

1  Diss.  II.  P.  I.  §  4. 

VOL.    II.  19 


150  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

defiance  of  the  meaning  suggested,  both  by  the 
context,  and  by  general  use.  When  this  rule 
does  not  answer,  as  when  the  derivation  is  uncer- 
tain, the  second  is,  to  adopt  that  which,  of  all  the 
senses  of  the  word,  appears  to  the  translator  the 
most  common,  and  to  adhere  to  it  inflexibly  in 
every  case,  whatever  absurdity  or  nonsense  it 
may  involve  him  in.  I  might  mention  also  a  third 
method,  adopted  sometimes,  but  much  more  rarely 
than  either  of  the  former,  which  is  to  combine  the 
different  meanings  in  the  version.  Thus  the 
Hebrew  word  *IIDD  answers  sometimes  to  ^agos 
iveight,  sometimes  to  5o|a  glory.  Hence  probably 
has  arisen  the  Hellenistic  idiom  fiagog  do^r^s, 
weight  of  glory  ^.  The  Latin  word  sahis  means 
health,  answering  to  the  Greek  "vyieioi ;  and  often 
salvation,  answering  to  (Jazi^giov.  The  Hebrew 
word  is  equally  unequivocal  with  the  Greek,  yet 
our  translators,  from  a  respect  to  the  Vulgate, 
have,  in  one  place  ^,  combined  the  two  meanings 
into  saving  health,  a  more  awkward  expression, 
because  more  obscure  and  indefinite,  but  which 
denotes  no  more  than  salvation.  Perhaps^  not 
even  the  most  literal  interpreters  observe  invio- 
lably these  rules.  But  one  thing  is  certain  that, 
in  those  cases  wherein  they  assume  the  privilege 
of  dispensing  with  them,  this  measure  is,  in  no 
respect,  more  necessary  than  in  many  of  the  cases 
wherein  they  rigidly  observe  them.  I  may  add 
another    thing,    as    equally   certain,    that,   when- 

2  2  Cor.  iv.  17.  ^  Psal.  Ixvii.  2. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  151 

ever  they  think  proper  to  supersede  those  rules, 
they  betray  a  consciousness  of  the  insufficiency  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  their  method,  as 
well  as  of  the  necessity  there  is,  that  the  transla- 
tor use  his  best  discernment  and  skill  for  directing 
him,  first,  in  the  discovery  of  the  meaning  of  his 
author,  and,  secondly,  in  the  proper  choice  of 
words  for  expressing  it  in  his  version. 

§  5.  I  SHALL  exemplify  the  observance  of  the 
two  rules  above  mentioned,  in  the  version  I  pro- 
posed to  consider.  And,  first,  for  that  of  etymolo- 
gy ;  the  passg,ge  in  Genesis  ^,  which  is  properly 
rendered  in  the  common  translation,  Let  the 
tvaters  bring  forth  abundantly  the  moving  crea- 
ture :  Arias  renders,  Reptijicent  aqucB  reptile.  It 
is  true,  that  the  word  which  he  barbarously  trans- 
lates reptificent  (for  there  is  no  such  Latin  word,) 
is  in  the  Hebrew  conjugation  called  hiphil,  of  a 
verb  which  in  kal,  that  is,  in  the  simple  and  radical 
form,  signifies  repere,  to  creep.  Analogically, 
therefore,  the  verb  in  hiphil  should  import,  to 
cause  to  creep.  It  had  been  accordingly  rendered 
by  Pagninus,  a  critic  of  the  same  stamp,  but  not 
such  an  adept  as  Arias,  repere  faciant.  But  in 
Hebrew,  as  in  all  other  languages,  use,  both  in 
altering  and  in  adding,  exercises  an  uncontrollable 
dominion  over  all  the  parts  of  speech.  We  have 
just  the  same  evidence  that  the  original  verb  in 
hiphil.,  commonly  signifies  to  produce  in  abun- 
dance, like  fishes  and  reptiles,  as  we  have  that  in 

■  4  Gen.  i.  20. 


152  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

kal,  it  signifies  to  creep.  Now,  passing  the  bar- 
barism reptijicent,  the  sense  which  this  version 
conveys,  if  it  convey  any  sense,  is  totally  different 
from  the  manifest  sense  of  the  author.  It  is  the 
creation,  or  first  production  of  things,  which  Moses 
is  relating.  Arias,  in  this  instance,  (as  well  as 
Pagnin.)  seems  to  exhibit  things  as  already  pro- 
duced, and  to  relate  only  how  they  were  set  in 
motion.  What  other  meaning  can  we  give  to 
words  importing :  "  Let  the  waters  cause  the 
"  creeping  thing  to  creep  .'^"  or,  if,  by  a  similar  bar- 
barism in  English  we  may  be  allowed  to  give  a 
more  exact  representation  of  the  barbarous  Latin 
of  Arias  :  "  Let  the  waters  creepify  the  creeper  V 
Another  example  of  etymological  version,  in  de- 
fiance of  use  and  of  common  sense,  we  have,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  song  of  Moses  ^  The  words 
rendered  in  the  English  translation.  My  doctrine 
shall  drop  as  the  rain,  Arias  translates,  "  Stillabit 
"  ut  pluvia  assumptio  mea."  The  word  here 
rendered  assumptio  has,  for  its  etymon,  a  verb 
which  commonly  signifies  sumo,  capio.  That 
sage  interpreter,  it  seems,  thought  it  of  more 
importance  to  acquaint  his  reader  with  this  cir- 
cumstance, than  with  the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
word  itself.  And  thus,  a  passage  which,  in  the 
original,  is  neither  ambiguous  nor  obscure,  is  ren- 
dered in  such  a  manner  as  would  defy  Oedipus  to 
unriddle. 

§  6.  As  to  the  second  rule  mentioned,  of  adopt- 
ing that   which  of  all   the   significations   of  the 

^  Deut.  xxxii.  2. 


r.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  153 

word,  appears  to  the  translator  the  most  common, 
and  to  adhere  to  it  inflexibly  in  every  case,  how- 
ever unsuitable  it  may  be  to  the  context,  and 
however  much  it  may  mar  the  sense  of  the  dis- 
course ;  there  is  hardly  a  page,  nay  a  paragraph, 
nay,  a  line  in  Arias,  which  does  not  furnish  us 
with  an  example.  Nor  does  it  take  place  in  one 
only,  but  in  all  the  parts  of  speech.  First,  in 
nouns  ^,  Et  hoc  verbtcm  quo  circumcidit.  The 
Hebrew  word  rendered  verbum,  answers  both  to 
verbiim,  and  to  res  ;  but  as  the  more  common 
meaning  is  verbum,  it  must,  by  this  rule,  be 
made  always^o,  in  spite  of  the  connection.  In 
this  manner  he  corrects  Pagnin,  who  had  render- 
ed the  expression,  justly  and  intelligibly,  H^ec  est 
causa  quare  circumcidit.  In  that  expression'^, 
Filius  fructescens  Joseph  super  fontem,  we  have 
both  his  rules  exemplified,  the  first  in  the  bar- 
barous participle  fructescens,  which  has  a  deriva- 
tion similar  to  the  Hebrew  word  ;  the  second  in 
the  substantive  Jilius,  which  is  no  doubt  the  most 
common  signification  of  the  Hebrew  p  ben,  and 
in  the  preposition  super.  In  this  manner  he  cor- 
rects Pagnin,  who  had  said,  not  badly,  Ramus 
crescens  Joseph  juxta  fontem. 

§  7.  And,  to  shew  that  he  made  as  little  ac- 
count of  the  reproach  of  solecism  as  of  barba- 
rism, he  says,  as  absurdly  as  unmeaningly, 
Pater  fuit  sedentis  tentorium^,  giving  a  regimen 

8  Joshua,  V.  4.         7  Gen.  xlix.  22.         ^  Gen.  iv.  20, 


154  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

to  a  neuter  verb.  Pagnin  had  said,  inhahitan- 
tis.  That  this  is  conformable  to  the  signification 
of  the  Hebrew  word  in  this  passage,  which  the 
other  is  not,  there  can  be  no  question  ;  but  it 
might  fairly  bear  a  question,  whether  sedeo  or 
inhabito  be  the  more  common  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  word.  The  same  strange  rule  he  fol- 
lows in  the  indechnable  parts  of  speech,  the 
prepositions  in  particular,  which,  being  few  in 
Hebrew,  and  consequently  of  more  extensive  sig- 
nification, he  has  chosen  always  to  render  the 
same  way,  thereby  darkening  the  clearest  pas- 
sages, and  expressing,  in  the  most  absurd  manner, 
the  most  elegant. 

As  I  would  avoid  being  tedious,  I  shall  produce 
but  two  other  examples  of  this,  having  given 
one  already  from  Jacob's  benediction  to  his 
sons,  though  the  whole  work  abounds  with  ex- 
amples. The  expression  used  by  Pagnin,  in 
the  account  of  the  creation,  Dividat  aquas  ah 
aquis\  he  has  thus  reformed.  Sit  dividens  inter 
aquas  ad  aquas.  The  other  is  in  the  account 
of  the  murder  of  Abel*",  Surrexit  Cain  ad  He- 
beU  where  Pagnin  had  used  the  preposition 
contra.  As  a  specimen  of  the  servile  manner  in 
which  he  traces  the  arrangement  and  construc- 
tion of  the  original,  to  the  total  subversion  of  all 
rule  and  order  in  the  language  which  he  writes,  I 
shall  give  the  following  passage  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, not  selected  as  peculiar,  for  such   are  to 

3  Gen.  i.  6.  *°  Gen.  iv.  8. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  135 

be  found  in  every  page  :  De  quidem  enim  minis- 
terio  in  sanctos,  ex  abundanti  mihi  est  scribere 
vobis  ". 

§  8.  To  proceed  now,  as  I  proposed,  to  phrases 
or  combinations  of  words  :  I  shall,  first,  pro- 
duce some  examples  which  convey  a  mere  jar- 
gon of  words,  combined  ungrammatically,  and, 
therefore,  to  those  who  do  not  understand  the 
language  out  of  which  the  translation  is  made, 
unintelligibly.  Such  are  the  following  :  Ist(2  gene- 
rationes  cceli  et  term,  in  creari  ea,  in  die  facer e 
Deus  terram  et  cesium  ^^. — Emisit  eum  Dominus  ad 
colendam  terram  quod  sumptiis  est  inde^^. — Major 
iniquitas  mea  qicam  parcere  ^^.  But  as,  in  certain 
cases,  this  manner  of  copying  a  foreign  idiom, 
makes  downright  nonsense,  in  other  cases,  the 
like  combinations  of  corresponding  words,  in  dif- 
ferent languages,  though  not  unmeaning,  do  not 
convey  the  same  meaning,  nay,  sometimes  convey 
meanings  the  very  reverse  of  one  another.  Thus, 
two  negatives  in  Greek  and  French  deny  strong- 
ly, in  Latin  and  English  they  affirm.  i^7  7D  col 
la,  in  HebreAV  is  none  ;  non  omnis,  in  Latin,  which 
is  a  literal  version,  and  not  all,  in  English,  denote 
some.  In  like  manner,  ovx,  construed  with  ovSsig, 
in  Greek,  is  still  nobody  ;  non  nemo,  in  Latin, 
which  is  a  literal  version,  is  somebody.  The 
words  jcai  ov  ^leXsi  aot  nsgi  ovSavog^^,  rendered 
properly  in  the  common  version,  and  carest  for  no 

11  2  Cor.  ix.  1.         12  Gen.  ii.  4.         "  Gen.  iii.  23. 
14  Gen.  iv.  13.  i^  Mark,  xii.  14. 


156  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

man,  are  translated  by  Arias,  Et  non  cura  est  tibi 
de  nullo  ;  the  very  opposite  of  the  author's  senti- 
ment, which  would  have  been  more  justly  render- 
ed, Et  cura  est  tibi  de  nullo  ;  or,  as  it  is  in  the 
Vulgate,  JVo/z  curas  quenqtiam.  In  this,  however, 
hardly  any  of  the  metaphrasts  have  judged  proper 
to  observe  a  strict  uniformity  ;  though,  I  will  ven- 
ture to  say,  it  would  be  impossible  to  assign  a 
good  reason  why,  in  some  instances,  they  depart 
from  that  method,  whilst,  in  others,  they  tena- 
ciously adhere  to  it. 

§  9.  It  ought,  withal,  to  be  observed,  that  seve- 
ral interpreters  who,  in  translating  single  words, 
have  not  confined  themselves  to  the  absurd 
method  above  mentioned,  could  not  be  persuaded 
to  take  the  same  liberty  with  idioms  and  phrases. 
Thus  Arias  has  but  copied  the  Vulgate  in  trans- 
lating,'Ort  ovx  aBvvaTijau  naga,  to  Obch  itav  gyj- 
fia^^,  Quia  non  erit  impossibile  apud  Deum  omke 
verbum.  In  this  short  sentence  there  are  no  fev/- 
er  than  three  improprieties,  one  arising  from  the 
mis-translation  of  a  noun,  and  the  other  two  from 
mis-translated  idioms.  'Pij^ia,  in  Hellenistic  usage, 
is  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  HD^l  daber,  which, 
as  has  been  observed,  signifies  not  only  verbum, 
a  word,  but  res,  or  negotium,  a  thing ;  which 
last  is  the  manifest  sense  of  it  in  the  passage 
quoted  :  the  second  is  the  rendering  of  ov  nav, 
non  omne,  and  not,  as  it  ought  to  have  been, 
nullum  :   the   third  arises   from    using  the  future 

16  Luke,  i.  37. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  167 

in  Latin,  in  the  enunciation  of  an  universal 
truth.  It  ought  to  have  been  remembered,  that 
the  Hebrew  has  no  present  tense  ;  one  who 
writes  it,  is  consequently,  obliged  often  to  use 
the  other  tenses,  and  especially  the  future,  in 
enunciating  general  truths,  for  which,  in  all  mod- 
ern languages,  as  well  as  in  Greek  and  Latin, 
we  employ  the  present.  In  consequence  of 
these  blunders,  the  version,  as  it  lies,  is  perfectly 
unmeaning  ;  whereas,  no  person,  that  is  even  but 
a  smatterer  in  Hebrew,  will  hesitate  to  declare, 
that  the  sense  is  completely  expressed  in  Eng- 
lish, in  thesev-  words  :  For  nothing  is  impossible 
with  God. 

§  10.  There  are  few  of  the  old  versions  which 
have  kept  entirely  clear  of  this  fault.  In  the 
ancient  Latin  translation  called  the  Italic,  where- 
of we  have  not  now  a  complete  copy  remaining, 
there  were  many  more  barbarisms  than  in  the 
present  Vulgate.  And  even  Jerom  himself  ac- 
quaints us  that,  when  he  set  about  making  a  new 
version,  he  left  several  things  which  he  knew  to 
be  not  properly  expressed,  for  fear  of  giving 
offence  to  the  weak,  by  his  numerous  and  bold 
alterations.  This  idiom  of  7ion  omne,  for  7iihil,  or 
nullum^  seems  to  have  been  one  which,  in  many 
places,  though  not  in  all,  he  has  corrected.  Thus, 
what,  in  the  old  Italic,  after  the  Septuagint,  was 
J\*on  est  omne  recens  sub  sole  ^^  he  has  rendered 
perspicuously  and  properly,  JVihil  sub  sole  novum. 

17  Eccl.  i.  9. 
VOL.  II.  20 


158  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

A  slavish  attachment  to  the  letter,  in  translating, 
without  any  regard  to  the  meaning,  is  originally 
the  offspring  of  the  superstition,  not  of  the  church, 
but  of  the  synagogue,  where  it  would  have  been 
more  suitable  in  Christian  interpreters,  the  minis- 
ters, not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the  spirit,  to  have 
allowed  it  to  remain. 

§  11.  That  this  is  not  the  way  to  answer  the 
first  and  principal  end  of  translating,  has,  I  think, 
been  sufficiently  demonstrated.  Instead  of  the 
sense  of  the  original,  it  sometimes  gives  us 
downright  nonsense  ;  frequently  a  meaning  quite 
different,  and  not  seldom  it  makes  the  author  say 
in  another  language,  the  reverse  of  what  he  said 
in  his  own.  Can  it  then  be  doubted,  that  this  is 
not  the  way  to  attain  the  second  end  in  translat- 
ing }  Is  this  a  method  whereby  a  translator  can 
convey  into  his  version,  as  much  as  possible,  in  a 
consistency  with  the  genius  of  a  different  lan- 
guage, the  author's  spirit  and  manner,  and  (so 
to  speak)  the  very  character  of  his  style  ?  It 
is  evident,  that  the  first  end  may  be  attained, 
where  this  is  not  attained.  An  author's  mean- 
ing may  be  given,  but  in  a  different  manner ; 
a  concise  writer  may  be  made  to  express  him- 
self diffusely,  or  a  diffuse  writer  concisely  ;  the 
sense  of  an  elegant  work  may  be  justly  given, 
though  in  a  homely  dress.  But  it  does  not  hold 
conversely,  that  the  second  end  may  be  attained 
without  the  first ;  for  when  an  author's  sense  is 
not  given,  he  is  not  fairly  represented.  Can  we 
do  justice   to   his   manner,    if,  when  he    reasons 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  159 

consequentially,  he  be  exhibited  as  talking  inco- 
herently ;  if  what  he  writes  perspicuously,  be  ren- 
dered ambiguously  or  obscurely ;  if  what  flows 
from  his  pen  naturally  and  easily,  in  the  true  idiom 
and  construction  of  his  language,  be  rendered 
ruggedly  and  unnaturall}^,  by  the  violence  per- 
petually done  to  the  construction  of  the  language, 
into  which  it  is  transmuted,  rather  than  translated  ? 
The  manner  of  a  tall  man,  who  walks  with  digni- 
ty, would  be  wretchedly  represented  by  a  dwarf 
who  had  no  other  mode  of  imitation,  but  to  num- 
ber and  trace  his  footsteps.  The  immoderate 
strides  and  distortions  which  this  ridiculous  at- 
tempt  would  oblige  the  imitator  to  employ,  could 
never  convey  to  the  spectators  an  idea  of  easy  and 
graceful  motion. 

§  12.  The  third  end  of  translating,  that  of  pre- 
serving purity  and  perspicuity  in  the  language 
into  which  the  version  is  made,  is  not  so  much  as 
aimed  at,  by  any  of  the  literal  tribe.  Upon  the 
whole,  I  cannot  express  my  sentiments  more 
justly  both  of  Arias  and  of  Pagnin,  than  in  the 
words  of  Houbigant,  who  *^,  in  assigning  his  rea- 
sons for  not  adopting  the  version  of  either,  says, 
"  Non  facerem  meam  illam  versionem  Ariae  Mon- 
"  tani  horridam,  inficetam,  obscuram,  talem  de- 
"  nique  qualem  composuisset,  si  quis  homines 
"  deterrere  ab  sacris  codicibus  legendis  voluisset. 

w  Proleg.  p.  178. 


160  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

"  Non  ill  am  Pagnini,  quam  Arias,  jam  malam, 
"  fecit  imitando  ac  interpolando  pejorem."  In 
this  last  remark,  which  may  in  part  be  justified 
by  some  of  the  foregoing  examples,  he  perfectly 
agrees  with  Father  Simon,  who  says  of  Arias's 
amendments  on  Pagnin's  translation,  Quot  correc- 
tiones,  tot  corruptiones.  For  there  is  hardly  any 
thing  altered  that  is  not  for  the  worse.  Such 
Latin  versions  would  be  quite  unintelligible,  if  it 
were  not  for  the  knowledge  we  have  of  the  origin- 
al, and  of  the  common  English  version,  which  is 
as  literal  as  any  version  ought  to  be,  and  some- 
times more  so.  The  coincidence  of  two  or  three 
words  recalls  the  whole  passage  to  our  memory ; 
but  we  may  venture  to  pronounce  that,  to  an  an- 
cient Roman  who  knew  nothing  of  the  learning  or 
opinions  of  the  East,  the  greater  part  of  Arias's 
Bible  would  appear  no  better  than  a  jumble  of 
words  without  meaning. 

§  13.  To  all  the  other  evil  consequences  re- 
sulting from  such  versions,  we  ought  to  add,  that 
they  necessarily  lead  the  unlearned  reader  into  an 
opinion  that  the  original  which  is  susceptible  of 
them,  must  be  totally  indefinite,  equivocal,  and 
obscure.  Few,  without  making  the  experiment, 
can  allow  themselves  to  think,  that  it  is  equally 
possible,  by  this  mode  of  translation,  completely 
to  disfigure,  and  render  unintelligible,  what  is 
written  with  plainness  and  simplicity,  and'without 
any  ambiguity,  in  their  mother-tongue.  Yet 
nothing    is    more    certain    than    that    the    most 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  161 

perspicuous   writing,   in    any   language,   may    be 
totally  disguised  by  this  treatment  ^^     Were  the 

^^  As  it  is  impossible,  without  an  example,  to  conceive  how 
monstrous  the  transformation  is,  which  it  occasions,  1  shall 
here  subjoin  a  specimen  of  a  few  English  sentences  translated 
into  Latin,  in  the  taste  and  manner  of  Arias.  "  Ego  inveni 
"  aliquod  pecus  in  meo  frumento,  et  posui  ilia  in  meam  libram. 
"  Ego  rogavi  unum  qui  stabat  per,  si  ille  novit  cujus  ilia 
"  erant.  Sed  ille  vertit  unam  viam  a  me,  et  fecit  non  ita  mul- 
"  turn  ut  vindicare  salvum  ad  redire  mihi  uUam  responsionem. 
"  Super  hoc  ego  rogavi  unum  alium  qui  dixit  unam  magnam 
"  tabulam  abiegnam  in  replicatione  quam  ego  feci  non  sub- 
"  stare.  Quam  unquam  ego  volui  non  habere  posita  ilia  sur- 
"  sum,  habui  ego  notum  ad  quem  ilia  pertinebant ;  nam  ego 
"  didici  post  custodias  quod  ille  fuit  unus  ego  fui  multum 
"  aspectus  ad."  Were  these  few  lines  put  into  the  hands 
of  a  learned  foreigner,  who  does  not  understand  English,  he 
might  sooner  learn  to  read  Chinese,  than  to  divine  their  mean- 
ing. Yet  a  little  attention  would  bring  an  Englishman  who 
knows  Latin,  soon  to  discover  that  they  were  intended  as  a 
version,  if  we  may  call  it  so,  of  the  following  words,  which,  in 
the  manner  of  Arias,  I  give  with  the  version  interlined. 
Ego  inveni  aliquod  pecus  in  meo  frumento,  et  posui  ilia  in  meam 

/  found  some  cattle  in  my  corn,  and  put  them  into  my 
libram.  Ego  rogavi  unum  qui  stabat  per  si  ille  novit  cujus 
pound.  I  asked  one  who  stood  by  if  he  knew  whose 
ilia  erant.  Sed  ille  vertit  unam  viam  a  me,  et  fecit  non 
they  were.  But  he  turned  a  way  from  me,  and  did  not 
ita  multum  ut  vindicare  salvum  ad  redire  mihi  ullam  responsi- 
so  much  as  vouch  safe  to  return  me  any  answer. 
onem.      Super  hoc  ego    rogavi    unum    alium    qui  dixit   unam 

Upon  this       I        asked       another         who     said     a 
magnam  tabulam  abiegnam  in  replicatione  quam  ego  feci  non 

great  deal  in         reply       which     I      did     not 

substare.     Quam  unquam    ego    volui    non    habere    posita  ilia 
understand.  How         ever      I      would     not      have       put     them 


162  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

ancient  Greek  or  Latin  classics,  in  prose  or  verse, 
to  be  thus  rendered  into  any  modern  tongue, 
nobody  could  bear  to  read  them.     Strange  indeed, 


sursum,  habui   es^o  notum  ad  quern  ilia  pertinebant,  nam  ego 

ttjo,       had        I       known  to    whom  they  belonged.,       for       I 
didici  post  custodlas  quod  ille  fuit  unus  ego  fui  multum  aspectus 
learned    afterwards    that    he    was  one      I     was   much     beholden 
ad. 
to. 

Should  one  object  that  the  Latin  words  here  employed  do  not 
suit  the  sense  of  the  corresponding  words  in  the  passage  trans- 
lated, it  is  admitted  that  they  do  not ;  but  they  are  selected  in 
exact  conformity  to  the   fundamental  rules  followed  by  Arias. 
Thus  una  via  away,  vindicare  salvum  vouchsafe,  quam  unquam 
however,  tabula  abiegna  deal,  substare  understand,  post  custodias 
afterwards,  aspectus  beholden,  are  all  agreeable  to  the  primary 
rule   of  etymology,  and,  in  no  respect,   worse   than   reptijico, 
where  both  sense   and   use    require  produco  ;  or  assumptio  for 
doctrina,  to  the  utter  destruction  of  all  meaning,  or  7ion  omnis 
for  millus,  which  gives  a  meaning  quite  diiferent.     But  by  what 
rule,  it  may  be  asked,  is  pound  rendered  libra.,  in  a  case  wherein 
it  manifestly  means  septum?     By  the  same  rule,  it  is  answered, 
whereby  iashab  is   rendered  sedere,  in  a  case  wherein  both  the 
sense  and  the  construction  required  inhabitare.,  and  daber  ren- 
dered verbum.,  where  it  manifestly  means  re*,   th^  golden  rule 
of  uniformity,  by  which  every  term  ought  always  to   be  ren- 
dered the  same  way,  and  agreeably  to   its  most  common  signi- 
fication, without  minding  whether  it  makes   sense   or  nonsense 
so   rendered.     [The    literal    translator   follows   implicitly  the 
sage  direction  given  by  Cajetan,  "  Non  sit  vobis  curae,  si  sensus 
"  non  apparet,  quia  non  est  vestri   officii  exponere   sed  inter- 
"  pretari :  interpretamini  sicut  jacet,  et  relinquatis  expositori- 
"  bus  curam  intelligendi."     Praef.  Comment,  in  Psalm^]     Now 
it  is  certain  that  pound  occurs  oftener  in  the  sense  of  libra  than 
in  that  of  septum.     But  how  do  you  admit  such  gross  solecisms 


p.  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  163 

that  a  treatment  should  ever  have  been  account- 
ed respectful  to  the  sacred  penmen,  which,  if 
given  to  any  other  writer,  would  be  universally 
condemned,  as  no  better  than  dressing  him  in  a 
fool's  coat. 

I  am  not  at  all  surprised  that  certain  great  men 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  like  Cardinal  Cajetan, 
who  (though,  with  foreign  assistance,  he  trans- 
lated the  Psalms)  did  not  understand  a  word 
of  Hebrew,  show  themselves  great  admirers  of 
this  method.  The  more  unintelligible  the  Scrip- 
tures are  made,  the  greater  is  the  need  of  an  in- 
fallible interpreter,  an  article  of  which  they  never 
lose  sight  But  that  others,  who  have  not  the 
same  motive,  and  possess  a  degree  of  understand- 
ing superior  to  that  of  a  Jewish  cabalist,  should 
recommend  an  expedient,  which  serves  only  for 
debasing  and  discrediting  the  dictates  of  the  di- 
vine spirit,  appears  perfectly  unaccountable.  I 
shall  only  add,  that  versions  of  this  kind  are  very 
improperly  called  translations.    The  French  have  a 

as  redire  responsionem  ?  I  answer,  Is  this  more  so  than  sedere 
tentorium  ?  or  do  the  prepositions  as  used  here  stahat  per  and 
aspectus  ad,  make  the  construction  more  monstrous,  than  inter 
ad  in  that  sentence  sit  dividens  inter  aquas  ad  aqtias  ?  Besides, 
there  is  not  a  word  in  the  above  specimen,  which,  taken 
severally,  is  not  Latin  :  so  much  cannot  be  said  for  Arias, 
whose  work  is  over-run  with  barbarisms  as  well  as  solecisms. 
Witness  his  fructescens  and  reptificent.,  in  the  few  examples 
above  produced.  And  in  regard  to  the  total  incoherence  and 
want  of  construction,  can  any  thing  in  this  way  exceed  in  creari 
ea,  or  in  die  facere  Deus,  or  ad  terram  quod  sumptus  est  inde,  or 
major  iniquitas  quam  parcere  ? 


164  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

convenient  word,  travesty,  by  which  they  denote 
the  metamorphosis  of  a  serious  work  into  mere 
burlesque  by  dressing  it  in  such  language  as  ren- 
ders it  ridiculous,  makes  the  noblest  thoughts 
appear  contemptible,  the  richest  images  beggarly, 
and  the  most  judicious  observations  absurd.  I 
would  not  say,  therefore,  the  Bible  translated,  but 
the  Bible  travestied,  by  Arias  Montanus.  For 
that  can  never  deserve  the  name  of  a  translation, 
which  gives  you  neither  the  matter  nor  the  man- 
ner of  the  author,  but,  on  the  contrary,  often  ex- 
hibits both  as  the  reverse  of  what  they  are.  Mal- 
venda,  a  Dominican,  is  another  interpreter  of  the 
same  tribe  with  his  brother  Pagnin,  and  with 
Arias,  whom  he  is  said  greatly  to  have  exceeded 
in  darkness,  barbarism,  and  nonsense.  I  never 
saw  his  version,  but  have  reason  to  believe,  from 
the  accounts  given  of  it,  by  good  judges,  that  it 
can  answer  no  valuable  purpose. 


(Jf) 


PART  III. 


STRICTURES    ON    THE    VULGATE. 

I  PROCEED  now  to  consider  a  little  the  ijierit  of 
some  other  Latin  translations  of  hol}^  writ.  The 
first,  doubtless,  that  deserves  our  attention,  in 
respect   both    of  antiquity,  and    I    may    say,    of 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  165 

universality  in  the  Western  churches,  is  the  Vul- 
gate. The  version  which  is  known  by  this  name, 
at  least  the  greater  part  of  it,  is  justly  ascribed 
to  Jerom,  and  must  therefore  be  dated  from  the 
end  of  the  fourth,  or  beginning  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. As  its  reception  in  the  church  was  gradual, 
voluntary,  and  not  in  consequence  of  the  com- 
mand of  a  superior,  and  as,  for  some  ages,  the 
old  Latin  version,  called  the  Italic,  continued, 
partly  from  the  influence  of  custom,  partly  from 
respect  to  antiquit} %  to  be  regarded  and  used 
by  many,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  a  part  of 
that  version  §till  remains  in  the  Vulgate,  and  is, 
in  a  manner,  blended  with  it.  One  thing  at  least 
is  certain  that,  in  several  places  of  the  Vulgate, 
we  find  those  expressions  and  ways  of  rendering 
which  that  learned  father,  in  his  works,  strongly 
condemned,  at  the  same  time  that,  in  other  parts, 
we  see  his  emendations  regularly  followed.  Be- 
sides, as  I  hinted  before,  there  were  several  cor- 
rections which,  though  his  judgment  approved 
them,  he  did  not,  for  fear  of  shocking  the  senti- 
ments of  the  people,  think  it  prudent  to  adopt. 
From  this  it  may  naturally  be  inferred,  that  the 
manner  and  style  of  the  Vulgate  will  not  be  found 
equal  and  uniform.  And  I  believe  no  person  who 
has  examined  it  with  a  critical  eye,  w^ill  deny  that 
this  is  the  case. 

§  2.  From  what  remains  of  the  old  Italic,  it  ap- 
pears to  have  been  much  in  the  taste  of  almost  all 
the  Jewish  translations,  extremely  literal,  and  con- 
sequently, in  a  great  degree,  obscure,  ambiguous, 

vol-  II.  21 


166  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

and  barbarous.  To  give  a  Latin  translation  of 
the  Scriptures,  which  might  at  once  be  more  per- 
spicuous, and  more  just  to  the  original,  was  the 
great  and  laudable  design  of  that  eminent  light  of 
the  Western  churches  above  mentioned.  The 
Old  Testament  part  of  the  Italic  version  had  been 
made  entirely  from  the  Septuagint  (for  the  He- 
brew Scriptures  were,  for  some  ages,  of  no  esti- 
mation in  the  church  ;)  but  Jerom,  being  well 
skilled  in  Hebrew,  undertook  to  translate  from  the 
original.  This  itself  has  made,  in  some  passages, 
a  considerable  difference  on  the  sense.  And,  as 
the  version  of  the  Seventy  has  generally  the 
mark  of  a  servile  attachment  to  the  letter,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  there  must  have  been,  in  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts  extant  at  the  times  when 
the  several  parts  of  that  version  were  made,  con- 
siderable differences  of  reading  from  those  in  com- 
mon use  at  present.  And  though  I  think,  upon 
the  whole,  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  much 
preferable,  an  acquaintance  with  the  Septuagint 
is  of  great  importance  for  several  reasons,  and 
particularly  for  this,  that  it  often  assists  in  sug- 
gesting the  true  reading,  in  cases  where  the 
present  Hebrew  copies  are  obscure,  or  appear  to 
have  been  vitiated.  Jerom,  in  such  cases,  judi- 
ciously recurred  to  that  translation ;  and  often, 
when  it  was  more  perspicuous  than  the  Hebrew, 
and  the  meaning  which  it  contained  seemed  better 
adapted  to  the  context,  borrowed  light  from  it. 
Perhaps  he  would  have  done  still  better  to  have 
recurred  oftener.  For,  however  learned  those 
Jews   were,   to   whose    assistance   he   owed  .the 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  167 

acquisition  of  the  language,  they  were  strongly 
tinctured  with  the  cabalistical  prejudices  which 
prevailed,  more  or  less,  in  all  the  literati  of  that 
nation.  Hence  they  were  sometimes  led,  on  very 
fanciful  grounds,  to  assign  to  words  and  phrases, 
meanings  not  supported  by  the  obvious  sense  of 
the  context,  nor  even  by  the  most  ancient  versions 
and  paraphrases.  In  this  case,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  these  were  more  to  be  confided  in  than 
his  Jewish  instructers. 

§  3.  No  intelligent  person  will  question  the  fit- 
ness of  that  judicious  and  learned  writer,  for  the 
task  of  translating  the  Bible  into  his  native  lan- 
guage. But  that  we  may  not  be  led  too  far  in 
transferring  to  the  work,  the  personal  merit  of  the 
author,  we  ought  to  remember  two  things,  first, 
that  the  Vulgate,  as  we  have  it  at  present,  is  not 
entirely  the  work  of  Jerom  ;  and,  secondly,  that 
even  in  what  Jerom  translated,  he  left  many 
things,  as  he  himself  acknowledges,  which  needed 
correction,  but  which  he  did  not  choose  to  alter, 
lest  the  liberties  taken  with  the  old  translation 
should  scandalize  the  vulgar.  It  is  no  wonder, 
then,  that  great  inequalities  should  be  observable 
in  the  execution.  In  many  places  it  is  excellent. 
The  sense  of  the  original  is  conveyed  justly  and 
perspicuously  ;  no  affectation  in  the  style  ;  on  the 
contrary,  the  greatest  simplicity  combined  with 
purity.  But  this  cannot  be  said  with  truth  of 
every  part  of  that  work. 


168  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

§  4.  In  the  preceding  part  of  this  Disserta- 
tion^", I  took  notice  of  one  passage  rendered 
exactly  in  the  manner  of  Arias,  who  found  nothing 
to  alter  in  it,  in  order  to  bring  it  down  to  his 
level.  Indeed  there  are  many  such  instances. 
Thus  ovx  av  sdad'Tf  naaa  aag^  is  rendered,  JVow 
Jieret  salva  omnis  caro^^.  In  some  places  we  find 
barbarisms  and  solecisms,  to  which  it  would  be 
difficult  to  discover  a  temptation,  the  just  expres- 
sion being  both  as  literal  and  as  obvious  as  the 
improper  one  that  has  been  preferred  to  it.  Of 
this  sort,  we  may  call,  JVeqiie  riubent,  neqiie  nil- 
bentur^^.  J\*07ine  vos  magis  plures  estis  illis^^f 
JYon  capit  prophetam  perire  extra  Jertisalem^\ 
and  Filius  hominis  non  venit  ministrari  sed  minis- 
trare^^.  Yet,  as  to  the  last  example,  the  same 
words  in  another  Gospel  are  rendered  without  the 
solecism,  Filiiis  hominis  non  venit  ut  ministrare- 
tur  ei,  sed  ut  ministraret  ^^.  Very  often  we  meet 
with  instances  of  the  same  original  word  rendered 
by  the  same  Latin  word,  when  the  sense  is  man- 
ifestly different,  and  the  idiom  of  the  tongue  does 
not  admit  it.  This  absurdity  extends  even  to 
conjunctions.  The  Greek  'otl  answers  frequently 
to  the  Latin  quia^  because,  and  not  seldom,  to 
quod,  that.  Here,  however,  it  is  almost  uniformly 
in  defiance  of  grammar  and  common  sense,  ren- 
dered quia  or  quoniam.  Thus,  Tu7ic  conjitebor 
illis  quia  nunquam  novi  vos^^,  and  Magister  sci- 

»o  §  9.  ^1  Matth.  xxiv.  22. 

M  Matth.  xxii.  30.  Mark,  xii.  25.  «  Matth.  vi.  26. 

*4  Luke,  xiii.  33.  *^  Matth.  xx.  28. 

2S  Mark,  x.  45.  27  Matth,  vii.  23.  • 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  169 

mus  quia  verax  es^^.  These  expressions  are  no 
better  Latin,  than  these  which  follow  are  Eng- 
lish. Then  will  I  confess  to  them,  because  I 
never  knew  yon,  and,  Master  we  know  because  thou 
art  true  :  words  which,  if  they  suggest  any  mean- 
ing, it  is  evidently  not  the  meaning  of  the  author  ; 
nor  is  it  a  meaning  which  the  original  would 
have  ever  suggested  to  one  who  understands  the 
language. 

Nay,  sometimes  even  the  favourite  rule  of  uni- 
formity is  violated,  but  not  for  the  sake  of  keep- 
ing to  the  sense,  the  sense  being  rather  hurt  by 
the  violation.  \.  Thus  Aao?  answering  to  populus, 
and  commonly  so  rendered,  is  sometimes  improp- 
erly translated  plebs.  ETtoirfds  XvTQoaiv  t«  Xaa 
'avTov^^,  is  rendered  Fecit  redemptionem  plebis 
suae.  Sometimes  the  most  unmeaning  barbarisms 
are  adopted  merely  to  represent  the  etymology  of 
the  original  term.  Tov  agrov  '^tffiav  tov  sTtiovaiov 
80s  'rffiiv  dtffjisgov,  is  rendered  Panem  nostrum 
super substantialem  da  nobis  hodie^".  Panis  super- 
substantialis  is  just  as  barbarous  Latin  as  super- 
substantial  bread  would  be  English,  and  equally 
unintelligible.  There  is  an  additional  evil  result- 
ing from  this  manner  of  treating  holy  writ,  that 
the  solecisms,  barbarisms,  and  nonsensical  expres- 
sions which  it  gives  rise  to,  prove  a  fund  of  mate- 
rials to  the  visionary,  out  of  which  his  imagination 
frames  a  thousand  mysteries. 

§  5.  I  WOULD  not,  however,  be  understood,  by 
these  remarks,  as  passing  a  general  censure  on 

S8  Matth.  xxii.  16.        29  Luke,  i.  68,         3o  Matth.  vi.  11. 


170  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

this  version,  which,  though  not  to  be  followed 
implicitl}^,  may,  I  am  convinced,  be  of  great  ser- 
vice to  the  critic.  It  ought  to  weigh  with  us, 
that  even  the  latest  part  of  this  translation  was 
made  about  fourteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  is, 
consequentl}^,  many  centuries  prior  to  all  the 
Latin  translations  now  current,  none  of  which 
can  claim  an  earlier  date  than  the  revival  of 
letters  in  the  West.  I  do  not  use  this  argument 
from  an  immoderate  regard  to  antiquity,  or  from 
the  notion  that  age  can  give  a  sanction  to  error. 
But  there  are  two  things,  in  this  circumstance, 
which  ought  to  recommend  the  work  in  question, 
to  the  attentive  examination  of  the  critic.  First 
that,  having  been  made  from  manuscripts  older 
than  most,  perhaps  than  any,  now  extant,  it 
serves,  in  some  degree,  to  supply  the  place  of 
those  manuscripts,  and  furnish  us  with  the  proba- 
ble means  of  discovering  what  the  readings  were, 
which  Jerom  found  in  the  copies  which  he  so 
carefully  collated.  Another  reason  is  that,  being 
finished  long  before  those  controversies  arose 
which  are  the  foundation  of  most  of  the  sects 
now  subsisting,  we  may  rest  assured  that,  in 
regard  to  these,  there  will  be  no  bias  from  party 
zeal  to  either  side  of  the  question.  We  cannot 
say  so  much  for  the  translations  which  have  been 
made  since  the  rise  of  Protestantism,  either  by 
Protestants  or  by  Papists.  And  these  are,  in  my 
opinion,  two  not  inconsiderable  advantages." 

§  6.  I  TAKE  notice  of  the  last  the  rather,  be- 
cause many  Protestants,  on  account  of  the  declara- 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  171 

tion  of  its  authenticity,  solemnly  pronounced  by 
the  council  of  Trent,  cannot  avoid  considering  it 
as  a  Popish  Bible,  calculated  for  supporting  the 
Roman  Catholic  cause.  Now  this  is  an  illiberal 
conclusion,  the  offspring  of  ignorance,  which  I 
think  it  of  some  consequence  to  refute.  It  is  no 
further  back  than  the  sixteenth  century,  since  that 
judgment  was  given  in  approbation  of  this  ver- 
sion, the  first  authoritative  declaration  made  in 
its  favour.  Yet  the  estimation  in  -  which  it  was 
universally  held  throughout  the  Western  churches, 
was,  to  say  the  least,  not  inferior,  before  that  pe- 
riod, to  what  it  is  at  present.  And,  we  may  say 
with  truth  that,  though  no  judicious  Protestant 
will  think  more  favourably  of  this  translation,  on 
account  of  their  verdict;  neither  will  he,  on  this 
account,  think  less  favourably  of  it.  It  was  not 
because  this  version  was  peculiarly  adapted  to 
the  Romish  system,  that  it  received  the  sanction 
of  that  sj^nod ;  but,  because  it  was  the  only  Bible 
with  which  the  far  greater  part  of  the  members 
had,  from  their  infancy,  had  the  least  acquaintance. 
There  were  but  few  in  that  assembl}'  who  under- 
stood either  Greek  or  Hebrew.  They  had  heard 
that  the  Protestants,  the  new  heretics,  as  they 
called  them,  had  frequent  recourse  to  the  original, 
and  were  beginning  to  make  versions  from  it ; 
a  practice  of  which  their  own  ignorance  of  the 
original  made  them  the  more  jealous.  Their 
fears  being  thus  alarmed,  they  were  exceeding!}^ 
anxious  to  interpose  their  authority,  by  the  declar- 
ation above  mentioned,  for  preventing  new  trans- 
lations  being   obtruded    on   the    people.      They 


172  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

knew  what  the  Vulgate  contained ;  and  had  been 
early  accustomed  to  explain  it  in  their  own  way. 
But  they  did  not  know  what  might  be  produced 
from  new  translations.  Therefore,  to  preoccupy 
men's  minds,  and  prevent  every  true  son  of  the 
church  from  reading  other,  especially  modern, 
translations,  and  from  paying  any  regard  to  what 
might  be  urged  from  the  original,  the  very  in- 
definite sentence  was  pronounced  in  favour  of 
the  Vulgate,  vetus  et  vulgata  editio,  that,  in  all  dis- 
putes, it  should  be  held  for  authentic,  ut  pro  au- 
thentica  habeattir. 

§  7.  Now,  if,  instead  of  this  measure,  that  coun- 
cil had  ordered  a  translation  to  be  made  by  men 
nominated  by  them,  in  opposition  to  those  pub- 
lished by  Protestants,  the  case  would  have  been 
very  different :  for,  we  may  justly  say  that,  amidst 
such  a  ferment  as  was  then  excited,  there  should 
have  appeared,  in  a  version  so  prepared,  any  thing 
like  impartiality,  candour,  or  discernment,  would 
have  been  morally  impossible.  Yet,  even  such  a 
production  would  have  been  entitled  to  a  fair 
examination  from  the  critic,  who  ought  never  to 
disdain  to  receive  information  from  an  adversary, 
and  to  judge  impartially  of  what  he  offers.  As 
that,  however,  was  not  the  case,  we  ought  not  to 
consider  the  version  in  question  as  either  the 
better,  or  the  worse,  for  their  verdict.  It  is  but 
doing  justice  to  say,  that  it  is  no  way  calciriated  to 
support  Romish  errors  and  corruptions.  It  had 
been  in  current  use  in  the  church,  for  ages  before 
the  much  greater  part  of  those  errors  and  corrup- 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  173 

tions  was  introduced.  No  doubt  the  schoolmen 
had  acquired  the  knack  of  explaining  it  in  such 
a  way  as  favoured  their  own  prejudices.  But 
is  this  any  more  than  what  we  find  the  most 
discordant  sects  acquire  with  regard  to  the  orig- 
inal, or  even  to  a  translation  which  they  use  in 
common  ?  For  my  own  part,  though  it  were  my 
sole  purpose,  in  recurring  to  a  version,  to  re- 
fute the  absurdities  and  corruptions  of  Popery,  I 
should  not  desire  other  or  better  arguments  than 
those  I  am  supplied  with  by  that  very  version, 
which  one  of  their  own  councils  has  declared  au- 
thentical. 

§  8.  I  AM  not  ignorant  that  a  few  passages  have 
been  produced,  wherein  the  Vulgate  and  the  orig- 
inal convey  different  meanings,  and  wherein  the 
meaning  of  the  Vulgate  appears  to  favour  the 
abuses  established  in  that  church.  Some  of  these, 
but  neither  many,  nor  of  great  moment,  are,  no 
doubt,  corruptions  in  the  text,  probably  not  in- 
tentional, but  accidental,  to  which  the  originals  in 
Hebrew  and  Greek  have  been,  in  like  manner, 
liable,  and  from  which  no  ancient  book  extant 
can  be  affirmed  to  be  totally  exempted.  With  re- 
spect to  others  of  them,  they  will  be  found,  upon 
a  nearer  inspection,  as  little  favourable  to  Romish 
superstition,  as  the  common  reading  in  the  He- 
brew or  the  Greek.  What  is  justly  rendered  in 
our  version,  /  will  put  enmity  bettveen  thee  mid 
the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed ; 
it  shall   bruise    thy   head,  a7id  thou  shall  bruise 

VOL.  n.  22 


174  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

his  heel^\  is  in  such  a  manner  translated  in  the  Vul- 
gate, as  to  afford  some  colour  for  the  extraordinary 
honours  paid  the  virgin  mother  of  our  Lord.  In- 
imicitias  potiam  inter  te  et  mulierem,  et  semen 
tuum  et  semen  illius.  Ipsa  conteret  caput  tuum,  et 
ill  insidiaberis  calcaneo  ejus.  "  She  shall  bruise 
"  thy  head."  In  this  way  it  has  been  understood 
by  some  of  their  capital  painters,  who,  in  their  pic- 
tures of  the  Virgin,  have  represented  her  treading 
on  a  serpent.  It  is,  however  certain,  that  their 
best  critics  admit  this  to  be  an  error,  and  recur  to 
some  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  which 
read  ipsum  not  ipsa. 

A  still  grosser  blunder,  which  seems  to  give 
countenance  to  the  worship  of  relics,  is  in  the 
passage  thus  rendered  by  our  interpreters  :  By 
faith  Jacob.,  when  he  was  a  dying.,  blessed  both  the 
sons  of  Joseph  ;  and  tvorshipped,  leaning  upon  the 
top  of  his  staff  ^^ :  in  the  Vulgate  thus  :  Fide  Ja- 
cob moriens  singulos  filiorum  Joseph  benedixit,  et 
adoravit  fastigium  virgce  ejus ;  "  adored  the  top 
"  of  his  rod ;"  as  the  version  made  from  the  Vul- 
gate by  English  Romanists,  and  published  at 
Rheims,  expresses  it.  But  the  best  judges  among 
Roman  Catholics  admit,  that  the  Latin  text  is 
not  entire  in  this  place,  and  that  there  has  been 
an  accidental  omission  of  the  preposition,  through 
the  carelessness  of  transcribers.  For  they  have 
not  now  a  writer  of  any  name,  who  infers,  from 
the  declaration  of  authenticity,  either  the  infallibil- 
ity of  the  translator  or  the  exactness  of  the  cop- 
si  Gen.  iii.  15.  «  Heb.  xi.  21. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  175 

iers.  Houbigant,  a  priest  of  the  Oratory,  has  not 
been  restrained  by  that  sentence,  from  making  a 
new  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the 
Hebrew  into  Latin,  wherein  he  uses  as  much  free- 
dom with  the  Vulgate,  in  correcting  what  appear- 
ed to  him  faulty  in  it,  as  any  reasonable  Protestant, 
in  this  country,  would  do  with  the  common  Eng- 
lish translation.  Nay,  which  is  more  extraordina- 
ry^, in  the  execution  of  this  work,  he  had  the 
countenance  of  the  then  reigning  pontiff.  In  his 
version  he  has  corrected  the  passage  quoted  from 
Genesis,  and  said,  "  Illud,''^  (not  ilia)  "  conteret 
"  caput  tuurq,."  I  make  no  doubt  that  he  would 
have  corrected  the  other  passage  also,  if  he  had 
made  a  version  of  the  New  Testament. 

§  9.  I  KNOW  it  has  also  been  urged,  that  there 
are  some  things  in  the  Vulgate,  which  favour 
the  style  and  doctrine  of  Rome,  particularly  in 
what  regards  the  sacraments ;  and  that  such 
things  are  to  be  found  in  places  where  there  is  no 
ground  to  suspect  a  various  reading,  nor  that  the 
text  of  the  Vulgate  has  undergone  any  alteration, 
either  intentional  or  accidental.  Could  this  point 
be  evinced  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  it  would 
allow  more  to  Popery,  on  the  score  of  antiquity, 
than,  in  my  opinion,  she  is  entitled  to.  It  is  true 
that  marriage  appears,  in  one  passage,  to  be  called 
a  sacrament.  Paul,  after  recommending  the  du- 
ties of  husbands  and  wives,  and  enforcing  his 
recommendations  by  the  resemblance  which  mar- 
riage bears  to  the  relation  subsisting  between 
Christ    and    his    church,    having    quoted    these 


176  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x, 

words  from  Moses,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man 
leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined 
unto  his  wife,  and  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh ; 
adds,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Vulgate,  Sacramen- 
turn  hoc  magnutn  est,  ego  autem  dico  in  Christo 
et  in  ecclesia^^ ;  as  expressed  in  the  English 
translation,  This  is  a  great  mystery ;  but  I  speak 
concerning  Christ  and  the  church ;  that  is,  as  I 
had  occasion  to  observ  e  in  the  preceding  Disser- 
tation, to  which  I  refer  the  reader  ^'',  '  This  is 
*  capable  of  an  important  and  figurative  interpre- 
'  tation,  I  mean  as  it  relates  to  Christ  and  the 
'  church.'  Under  the  Mosaic  economy,  the  rela- 
tion wherein  God  stood  to  Israel,  is  often  repre- 
sented under  the  figure  of  marriage ;  and  it  is 
common  with  the  penmen  of  the  New  Testament, 
to  transfer  those  images,  whereby  the  union  be- 
tween God  and  his  people  is  illustrated  in  the 
Old,  to  that  which  subsists  between  Christ  and 
his  church.  It  is  evident  that,  by  the  Latin 
word  sacramentum,  the  Greek  fivOTr^giov  is  fre- 
quently rendered  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  it  is 
no  less  evident,  not  only  from  the  application  of  the 
word  in  that  version,  but  from  the  general  use  of 
it,  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  in  the  primitive  ages, 
that  it  often  denoted  no  more  than  an  allegorical  or 
figurative  meaning,  which  may  be  assigned  to  any 
narrative  or  injunction ;  a  meaning  more  sublime 
than  that  which  is  at  first  suggested  by  the 
words.  Thus,  the  moral  conveyed  under  an 
apologue  or  parable  was  with  them  the  sacrament, 


33 


Eph.  V.  32.  '<<  Part  I.  §  7,  8. 


V.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  177 

that  is,  the  hidden  meaning  of  the  apologue  or 
parable.  In  ego  dicam  tibi  sacr amentum  mulieris 
et  bestim  qiice  portat  eam^\  I  will  tell  thee  the 
mystery  of  the  woman,  and  of  the  beast  which 
carrieth  her  ;  it  is  indubitable,  that  (.ivarrfgiov,  or 
sacramentum,  means  the  hidden  meaning  of  that 
vision.  It  is  very  plain  that,  in  their  use,  the 
sense  of  the  word  sacramentum  was  totally  differ- 
ent from  that  which  it  has  at  present,  either 
among  Protestants  or  among  Papists  ^^  At  the 
same  time,  there  can  be  no  question,  that  the  mis- 
understanding of  the  passage  quoted  above,  from 
the  Epistle  to^the  Ephesians,  has  given  rise  to  the 
exaltation  of  matrimony  into  a  sacrament.  Such 
are  the  effects  of  the  perversion  of  words,  through 
the  gradual  change  of  customs  ;  a  perversion  inci- 
dent to  every  language,  but  which  no  translator 
can  foresee. 

No  more  is  their  doctrine  of  merit  supported  by 
the  following  expression  :  Talibtis  hostiis  pro- 
meretiir  Deus^'^ ;  which,  though  faulty  in  point  of 
purity,  means  no  more  than  is  expressed  in  the 
English  translation,  in  these  words :  With  such 
sacrifices  God  is  ivell  pleased.  It  is  by  common 
use,  and  not  by  scholastic  quibbles,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  sacred  writers  ought  to  be  inter- 
preted. Again,  the  command  which  so  often 
occurs  in  the  Gospels,  pmnitentiam  agite,  seems  at 
first  to  favour  the  Popish  doctrine  of  penance. 
In  conformity  to  this  idea,  the  Rhemish  transla- 
tors render  it  do  penance.     But  nothing  is  more 

35  Rev.  xvii.  7.        »6  Diss.  IX.  P.  I.         37  Heb.  xiii.  16. 


178  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

evident,  than  that  this  is  a  perversion  of  the 
phrase  from  its  ancient  meaning,  occasioned  by 
the  corruptions  which  have  insensibly  crept  into 
the  church.  That  the  words,  as  used  by  the 
Latin  translator,  meant  originally  as  much,  at 
least,  as  the  English  word  repent^  cannot  admit  a 
question  ;  and  thus  much  is  allowed  by  the  critics 
of  that  communion.  In  this  manner  Maldonate, 
a  learned  Jesuit,  in  his  Commentary  ^^,  explains 
pmnitentiam  agite,  as  of  the  same  import  with 
parate  vias  Domini,  rectas  facile  semitas  ejus  : 
and  both  as  signifying  Relinquite  errores,  et  seqiii- 
mini  veritatem  :  discedite  a  mcilo,  et  facite  bomim. 
He  understood  no  otherwise  the  agite  posnitentiam 
of  the  Latin  translator,  than  we  understand  the 
fiSTavoeiia  of  the  Evangelist.  Accordingly,  the 
same  Greek  word  is,  in  one  place  of  that  version, 
rendered  pcehitemini^^.  But  the  introduction  of 
the  doctrine  of  auricular  confession,  of  the  neces- 
sity for  obtaining  absolution,  of  submitting  to  the 
punishment  prescribed  by  the  priest  for  the  sins 
confessed,  which  thev  have  come  to  denominate 
posnitentia,  and  their  styling  the  whole  of  this 
institution  of  theirs  the  sacrament  of  penance., 
which  is  of  a  much  later  date  than  that  version, 
has  diverted  men's  minds  from  attending  to  the 
primitive,  and  only  proper,  import  of  the  phrase. 
Agite  pmnitentiam  was  not,  therefore,  originally  a 
mis-translation  of  the  Greek  ^siavosm,  though 
not  sufficiently  expressive  ;  but  the  abus^  which 
has  gradually  taken  place  in   the    Latin   church, 

38  On  Matth.  vii.  15.  ^9  Mark,  i.  15. 


F.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  179 

and  the  misapplication  of  the  term  which  it  has 
occasioned,  have  in  a  manner  justled  out  the  orig- 
inal meaning,  and  rendered  the  words,  in  their 
present  acceptation,  totally  improper  ^°. 

§  10.  Several  other  words  and  expressions 
give  scope  for  the  like  observations.  But,  after 
what  has  been  said,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enter 
further  into  particulars.  The  Vulgate  may  rea- 
sonably be  pronounced,  upon  the  whole,  a  good 
and  faithful  version.  That  it  is  unequal  in  the 
style,  in  respect  both  of  purity  and  of  perspicuity, 
is  very  evident ;  nay,  to  such  a  degree,  as  plainly 
to  evince  that*^it  has  not  all  issued  from  the  same 
pen.  Considered  in  gross,  we  have  reason  to 
think  it  greatly  inferior  to  Jerom's  translation,  as 
finished  by  himself  I  may  add,  we  have  reason 
also  to  consider  the  version  which  Jerom  actually 
made,  as  greatly  inferior  to  what  he  could  have 
made,  and  would  have  made,  if  he  had  thought 
himself  at  liberty  to  follow  entirely  his  own  judg- 
ment, and  had  not  been  much  restrained  by  the 
prejudices  of  the  people.  I  have  already  observ- 
ed the  advantages  redounding  to  the  critic  from 
the  use  of  this  version,  which  are  in  some  de- 
gree peculiar.  I  shall  only  add,  that  its  language, 
barbarous  as  it  often  is,  has  its  use  in  assisting;  us 
to  understand,  more  perfectly,  the  Latin  ecclesi- 
astical writers   of  the  early  ages. 

^°  For  further  illustration  on  this  article,  see  Diss.  XI.  Part 
II.  §  4. 


180  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 


PART  IV. 


STRICTURES    ON    CASTALIO. 

Having  shown,  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  justice 
to  an  author,  or  to  his  subject,  by  attempting  to 
track  him,  and  always  to  be  found  in  his  footsteps, 
I  shall  now  animadvert  a  little  on  those  translators 
who  are  in  the  opposite  extreme  ;  whose  manner 
is  so  loose,  rambling,  and  desultory,  that,  though 
they  move  nearly  in  the  same  direction  with  their 
author,  pointing  to  the  same  object,  they  keep 
scarcely  within  sight  of  his  path.  Of  the  former 
excess,  Arias  Montanus  is  a  perfect  model  :  the 
Vulgate  is  often  too  much  so.  Of  the  latter,  the 
most  remarkable  example  we  have  in  Latin,  is 
Castalio.  Yet  Castalio's  work  is  no  paraphrase, 
such  as  we  have  sometimes  seen  under  the  name 
of  liberal  translatiojis  :  for  in  these,  there  are 
always  interwoven  with  the  thoughts  of  the  author, 
those  of  his  interpreter,  under  the  notion  of  their 
importance,  either  for  illustrating,  or  for  enforcing, 
the  sentiments  of  the  original.  The  paraphrast 
does  not  confine  himself  to  the  humble  task  of  the 
translator,  who  proposes  to  exhibit,  pure  and  un- 
mixed, the  sentiments  of  another,  clothed,  indeed, 
in  a  different  dress,  namely,   such  as  the  country, 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  181 

into  which  he  introduces  them,  can  supply  him 
with.  The  paraphrast,  on  the  contrary,  claims  to 
share  with  the  author  in  the  merit  of  the  work, 
not  in  respect  of  the  language  merely,  for  to  this 
every  interpreter  has  a  claim,  but  in  respect  of 
what  is  much  more  important,  the  sense  :  na}^, 
further,  if  the  sentiments  of  these  two  happen  to 
jar,  no  uncommon  case,  it  is  easy  to  conjecture 
whose  will  predominate  in  the  paraphrase.  But 
it  is  not  with  paraphrasts  that  I  have  here  to  do. 
A  loose  manner  of  translating  is  sometimes  adopt- 
ed, not  for  the  sake  of  insinuating,  artfully,  the 
translator's  opinions,  by  blending  them  with  the 
sentiments  of  the  author,  but  merely  for  the  sake 
of  expressing  with  elegance,  and  in  an  oratorical 
manner,  the  sense  of  the  original. 

§  2.  This  was  acknowledged  to  be  in  a  high 
degree  Castalio's  object  in  translating.  He  had 
observed,  with  grief,  that  great  numbers  were 
withheld  from  reading  the  Scriptures,  that  is,  the 
Vulgate,  the  only  version  of  any  account  then 
extant,  by  the  rudeness,  as  well  as  the  obscurity, 
of  the  style.  To  give  the  public  a  Bible  more 
elegantly  and  perspicuously  written,  he  consider- 
ed as  at  least  an  innocent,  if  not  a  laudable,  arti- 
fice for  inducing  students,  especially  those  of  the 
younger  sort,  to  read  the  Scriptures  with  atten- 
tion, and  to  throw  aside  books  full  of  indecencies, 
then  much  in  vogue,  because  recommended  b}' 
the  beauty  and  ornaments  of  language.  '■  Cupie- 
"  bam,"    says   he'*',  "  extare  Latiniorem  aliquam, 

^1  Cast.  Defens.  Translat.  kc 
VOL.  n.  23 


182  PRELIMINARY  [v,  x. 

"  necnon  fideliorem,  et  magis  perspicuam  sacra- 
"  rum  literarum.  translationem,  ex  qua  posset 
"  eadem  opera  pietas  cum  Latino  sermone  disci, 
"  ut  hac  ratione  et  tempori  consuleretur,  et  homi- 
"  nes  ad  legenda  sacra  pellicerentur."  The  mo- 
tive was  surely  commendable  ;  and  the  reason 
whereon  it  was  founded,  a  general  disuse  of  the 
Scriptures,  on  account  of  the  badness  of  their 
language,  is  but  too  notorious.  Cardinal  Bembo, 
a  man  of  some  note  and  literature  under  the 
pontificate  of  Leo  X.  in  whose  time  the  Reforma- 
tion commenced,  is  said  to  have  expressed  him- 
self strongly  on  this  subject,  that  he  durst  not 
read  the  Bible,  for  fear  of  corrupting  his  style  ; 
an  expression  which  had  a  very  unfavourable 
aspect,  especially  in  a  churchman.  Nevertheless, 
when  we  consider  that,  by  the  Bible  he  meant  the 
Vulgate,  and  by  his  style,  his  Latinity;  this 
declaration,  judged  with  candour,  will  not  be 
found  to  merit  all  the  censure  which  Brown  ^> 
and  others,  have  bestowed  upon  it.  For,  surely 
no  one  who  understands  Latin,  will  say,  that  he 
wishes  to  form  his  style  in  that  language  on  the 
Vulgate.  Nor  does  any  reflection  on  the  lan- 
2;uage  of  that  translation  affect,  in  the  smallest 
degree,  the  sacred  writers.  The  character  of 
Moses's  style,  in  particular,  is  simplicity,  serious- 
ness, perspicuity,  and  purity.  The  first  and  sec- 
ond of  these  qualities  are,  in  general,  well  ex- 
hibited in  the  Vulgate  ;  the  third  is  sometimes 
violated,  and  the  fourth  often. 

P  Essays  on  the  Characteristics. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  183 

§  3.  But,  to  return  to  Castalio :  he  was  not  en- 
tirely disappointed  in  his  principal  aim.  Many 
Romanists,  as  well  as  Protestants,  who  could  not 
endure  the  foreign  idioms  and  obscurity  of  the 
Vulgate,  attracted  by  the  fluency,  the  perspicuity, 
and  partly,  no  doubt,  by  the  novelty  of  Castalio's 
diction,  as  employed  for  conveying  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit^  were  delighted  with  the  performance ; 
whilst  the  same  quality  of  novelty,  along  with 
what  looked  like  affectation  in  the  change,  exceed- 
ingly disgusted  others.  One  thing  is  very  evi- 
dent, in  regard  to  this  translator,  that  when  his 
work  first  m^e  its  appearance,  nobody  seemed  to 
judge  of  it  with  coolness  and  moderation.  Almost 
every  person  either  admired,  or  abhorred,  it.  At 
this  distant  period,  there  is  a  greater  probability 
of  judging  equitably,  than  there  was  when  it  was 
first  published,  and  men's  passions,  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  times,  were,  on  every  new  topic 
of  discussion,  wherein  religion  was  concerned,  so 
liable  to  be  inflamed. 

§  4.  If  we  examine  this  work  by  the  three 
great  ends  of  translating,  above  observed,  we  shall 
be  qualified  to  form  some  judgment  of  his  merit 
in  this  department.  As  to  the  first  and  principal 
end,  conveying  the  true  sense  of  his  author,  I 
think  he  has  succeeded,  at  least,  as  well  as  most 
other  translators  into  Latin,  and  better  than  some 
of  those  who,  with  much  virulence,  traduced  his 
character,  and  decried  his  work.  He  had,  indeed, 
one  great  advantage,  in  being  an  excellent  linguist, 


184  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

and  knowing  more  of  the  three  languages,  He- 
brew, Greek,  and  Latin,  than  most  of  the  critics 
of  his  time.  But  that  his  immoderate  passion 
for  classical  elocution,  did  sometimes  lead  him  to 
adopt  expressions  which  were  feeble,  obscure,  and 
improper,  is  very  certain.  And  it  must  be  owned, 
notwithstanding  his  plausible  defence,  that  Beza 
had  reason  to  affirm,  that  the  words  'on  inscxsxpaTo 
xai  €7toLrfcts  Xvtqcoglv  to  Xaa  "^avjov  ^^,  are  but  am- 
biguously and  frigidl}'  rendered,  qui  populi  sui  lib- 
er ationem  procuret.  The  difference  is  immense, 
between  the  notions  of  Pagans,  concerning  the 
agency  of  their  gods  in  human  affairs  and  the 
ideas  which  Scripture  gives  us,  of  the  divine 
efficiency ;  and,  therefore,  even  Cicero,  in  a  case 
of  this  kind,  is  no  authorit}^  The  following  in- 
stance, cited  by  Houbigant,  is  an  example  of  ob- 
scurity arising  from  the  same  cause  ^^ :  Tu  isti 
populo  terrce  hcBreditatem  hercisceris  ^^  Hercisco 
is  merely  a  juridical  term  which,  though  it  might 
have  been  proper,  in  a  treatise  on  the  civil  law,  or 
in  pleading  in  a  court  of  judicature,  no  Roman 
author,  of  any  name,  would  have  used,  in  a  work 
intended  for  the  people.  But,  to  no  sort  of  style 
are  technical  terms  more  unsuitable  than  to  that 
of  holy  writ.  It  was  the  more  inexcusable,  in  this 
place,  where  the  simple  and  natural  expression 
was  so  obvious.  Tu  terram — dabis  isti  populo 
possidendam.  Whereas,  the  phrase  which  Casta- 
lio  has  adopted,  would  have  probably  been  unin- 
telligible to  the  much  greater  part  of  the  people, 

43  Luke,  i.  68.  ^-^  Proleg.  <»5  Josh.  i.  6. . 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  185 

even  in  Rome,  at  the  time  when  Latin  was  their 
mother-tongue. 

§  5.  As  to  the  second  object  of  translating,  the 
conveyance  of  the  spirit  and  manner  of  the  author, 
in  a  just  exhibition  of  the  character  of  his  style; 
I  hinted  before  that,  in  this  particular,  he  failed 
entirely^  and,  I  may  even  add,  intentionally.  The 
first  characteristical  quality  of  the  historic  st3'le 
of  holy  writ,  simplicity^  he  has  totally  renounced. 
The  simple  style  is  opposed  both  to  the  complex, 
and  to  the  highly  ornamented.  The  complex  is, 
when  the  diQ;tion  abounds  in  periods,  or  in  sen- 
tences consisting  of  several  members  artfull}'^  com- 
bined. This  is  much  the  manner  of  Castalio,  but 
far  from  that  of  the  sacred  historians.  In  a 
former  Dissertation  ^*',  I  gave  a  specimen  of  this 
difference,  in  his  manner  of  rendering  the  first 
five  verses  of  Genesis.  Now,  for  the  transforma- 
tion he  has  made  them  undergo,  he  has  no  excuse, 
from  either  necessity  or  perspicuity.  The  simple 
style  will  suit  any  tongue,  (though  the  complex 
will  not  always,)  and  is  remarkably  perspicuous. 
His  aflfecting  so  often,  without  necessity,  to  give, 
in  the  way  of  narrative,  what,  in  the  original,  is  in 
the  way  of  dialogue,  is  another  flagrant  violation  of 
ancient  simplicity. 

Nor  is  simplicit}^  alone  hurt  by  this  change. 
How  cold  and  inanimate,  as  well  as  indefinite,  is 
the  oblique  but  classical  turn,  which  Castalio  has 

«  Diss.  III.  §  4. 


186  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

endeavoured  to  give  to  Laban's  salutation  of 
Abraham's  servant :  Eumqiie  a  Jova  salver e  jus- 
sum,  hortatur,  ne  foris  maneat :  compared  with 
the  direct  and  vivid  address  in  the  Vulgate,  literal- 
ly from  the  Hebrew :  Dixitqne,  Ingredere,  bene- 
dicte  Domini :  cur  foris  stas  ?  Or,  as  it  is  in  the 
English  translation,  Come  in,  thou  blessed  of  the 
Lord  :  wherefore  standest  thou  without  *''  ?  That 
he  transgresses,  in  this  respect  also,  by  a  profusion 
of  ornament,  is  undeniable.  By  his  accumulated 
diminutives,  both  in  names  and  epithets,  in  the 
manner  of  Catullus,  intended  surely  to  be  orna- 
mental, he  has  injured  the  dignity,  as  well  as  the 
simplicity  and  seriousness,  of  Solomon's  Song. 

Another  ornament,  in  the  same  taste,  by  which 
the  simplicity  of  the  sacred  writers  has  been 
greatly  hurt  in  his  translation,  is  the  attempt, 
when  the  same  ideas  recur,  of  expressing  them 
almost  always  in  different  words  and  varied 
phrases.  It  is  not  only  essential  to  the  simplicity, 
but  it  adds  to  the  majesty,  of  the  inspired  penmen, 
that  there  never  appears,  in  them,  any  solicitude 
about  their  words.  No  pursuit  of  variety,  or,  in- 
deed, of  any  thing  in  point  of  diction,  out  of  the 
common  road.  Very  different  is  the  manner  of 
this  interpreter.  I  had  occasion  to  remark  be- 
fore ^^,  that  there  were  no  fewer  than  seven  or 
eight  phrases,  employed  by  Castalio,  in  different 
places  of  the  New  Testament,  for  expressing  the 
import  of  the  single  verb  fisTavosa,  though  used 
always  in  the  same  acceptation.     And,  as  another 

•»7  Gen.  xxiv.  31 .  ^  Diss.  VI.  Part  III.  §.11. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  187 

specimen  of  this  inordinate  passion,  I  shall  add 
that,  to  express  Siay^^os,  he  uses,  beside  the  word 
persequutio,  the  far  too  general  terms,  vexatio, 
afflictio,  insectatio,  adversa,  res  adverse.  Nay,  in 
some  instances,  his  love  of  variety  has  carried 
him  so  far  as  to  sacrifice,  not  barely  the  style  of 
his  author,  but  his  sense.  What  can  be  a  stronger 
example  of  it,  than  his  denominating  God,  Deus 
obtrectator  ^^  rather  than  recur,  with  his  author, 
to  any  term  he  had  employed  before.  For  the 
Hebrew  NJlp  kone,  rendered  jealous  in  the  Eng- 
lish translation,  he  had  used,  in  one  place,  (Bmulus, 
in  another,  socii  impatietis,  and  in  a  third,  rivalis 
impatiens.  Though  some  exception  may  be  made 
to  the  two  last,  the  first  was  as  good  as  the  lan- 
guage afforded.  Another  translator  would  not 
have  thought  there  was  any  occasion  for  a  fourth  ; 
but  so  differently  thought  our  classical  interpreter, 
in  matters  of  this  kind,  that  he  preferred  a  most 
improper  word,  which  might  contribute  to  give 
his  style  the  graces  of  novelty  and  variety,  to  an 
apposite,  but  more  common,  term  which  he  had 
employed  before.  The  word  obtrectator  is  never 
used,  as  far  as  I  remember,  but  in  a  bad  sense.  It 
is  acknowledged  that,  when  jealousy  is  ascribed 
to  God,  the  expression  is  not  strictly  proper.  He 
is  spoken  of  after  the  manner  of  men.  But  then 
the  term,  by  itself,  does  not  imply  any  thing  im- 
moral. We  may  say  of  a  man  properl)',  in  certain 
cases,  that  he  had  reason  to  he  jealous  ;  but  with 

^9  Josh.  xxiv.  19. 


188  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

no  propriety  can  we  say,  in  any  case,  that  a  man 
had  reason  to  be  envious,  that  he  had  reason  to  be 
calumnious.  These  epithets  are  better  suited  to 
the  diabolical  nature,  than  to  the  divine.  Yet 
both  are  iiichided  in  the  word  obtrectator. 

In  short,  his  affectation  of  the  manner  of  some 
of  the  poets  and  orators,  has  metamorphosed  the 
authors  he  interpreted,  and  stript  them  of  the 
venerable  signatures  of  antiquity,  which  so  ad- 
mirably befit  them ;  and  which,  serving  as  intrin- 
sic evidence  of  their  authenticity,  recommended 
their  writings  to  the  serious  and  judicious. 
Whereas,  when  accoutred  in  this  new  fashion, 
nobody  would  imagine  them  to  have  been  He- 
brews; and  yet  (as  some  critics  have  justly  re- 
marked) it  has  not  been  within  the  compass  of 
Castalio's  art,  to  make  them  look  like  Romans. 

§  6.  I  AM  far  from  thinking  that  Castalio  merit- 
ed, on  this  account,  the  bitter  invectives  vented 
against  him  by  Beza,  and  others,  as  a  wilful  cor- 
rupter of  the  word  of  God.  His  intention  was 
good;  it  was  to  entice  all  ranks,  as  much  as  possi- 
ble, to  the  study  of  the  divine  oracles.  The  ex- 
pedient he  used  appeared,  at  least,  harmless.  It 
was,  in  his  judgment,  at  the  worst,  but  like  that 
which  Horace  observes,  was  often  practised  by 
sood-natured  teachers  : 


'    Ut  pueris  olim  dant  crustula  blandi 
Doctores,  elementa  velint  ut  discere  prima. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  189 

He  regarded  the  thoughts  solely  as  the  result  of 
inspiration,  the  words  and  idiom  as  merely  cir- 
cumstantial. "  Erant  Apostoli,"  says  he  ^°,  "  natu 
"  Hebrsei  :  et  peregrina,  hoc  est  Grseca  lingua, 
"  scribentes  hebraizabant ;  non  quod  id  juberet 
"  spiritus  :  neque  enim  pluris  facit  spiritus  He- 
"  braismos  quam  Grsecismos."  Indeed,  if  the 
liberty  Castalio  has  taken  with  the  diction,  had 
extended  no  further  than  to  reject  those  Hebra- 
isms which,  how  perspicuous  soever  they  are  in 
the  original,  occasion  either  obscurity  or  ambigui- 
ty, when  verbally  translated,  and  to  supply  their 
place,  by  simple  expressions,  in  the  Latin  idiom, 
clearly  conveying  the  same  sense,  no  person  who 
is  not  tinctured  with  the  cabalistical  superstition 
of  the  rabbinists,  could  have  censured  his  con- 
duct. 

Very  often,  the  freedoms  he  used  with  the  style 
of  the  sacred  penmen,  aimed  no  higher.  Thus, 
the  expression  of  the  Prophet,  which  is,  literally, 
in  English,  My  beloved  had  a  vineyard  in  a  horn 
of  the  son  of  oil ;  and  which  is  rendered  in  the 
Vulgate,  Vinea  facta  est  dilecto  meo  in  cormi 
filio  olei ;  Castalio  has  translated  much  better, 
because  intelligibly,  Habebat  amicus  mens  vineam 
in  quodam  pingui  dorso.  Had  he  used  the  more 
familiar  term,  collis,  instead  of  dorsum,  it  would 
have  been  still  better.  The  English  translation 
expresses  the  sense  very  properly,  My  well  be- 
loved hath  a  vineyard  in  a  very  fruitful  hilPK 
But   as   I   have    shown,   the   freedoms   taken   by 

50  Defens.  si  Isaiali,  v.  1. 

VOL.  11.  24 


190  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

Castalio  went  sometimes  a  great  deal  further 
than  this,  and  tended  to  lessen  the  ^jespect  due  to 
the  sacred  oracles,  by  putting  them  too  much 
on  a  footing  with  compositions  merely  human,  and 
by  changing  their  serious  manner,  for  one  com- 
paratively light  and  trifling,  nay,  even  playful 
and  childish. 

§  7.  As  to  the  other  two  qualities  of  the  his- 
torical style  of  Scripture,  perspicuity  and  purity, 
he  seems  in  general  to  have  been  observant  of 
them.  To  the  latter  he  is  censured  chiefly  for 
having  sacrificed  too  much.  Yet  his  attention  to 
this  quality  has  proved  a  principal  means  of  secur- 
ing his  perspicuity ;  as  it  is  certain  that  the  exces- 
sive attempts  of  others  to  preserve  in  their  ver- 
sion the  Oriental  idiom,  have  both  rendered  the 
plainest  passages  unintelligible,  and  given  bad 
Latin  for  what  was  good  Hebrew  or  Chaldee. 
The  example  last  quoted  is  an  evidence  of  this-; 
and  surely  none  can  doubt  that  it  has  more  per- 
spicuity, as  well  as  propriety,  to  say  in  Latin,  ut 
nemo  usque  evaderet  with  Castalio,  than  to  say, 
ut  non  fieret  salva  omnis  caro  with  the  Vulgate  : 
and,  Jfulla  res  est  quam  Deus  facere  now  possit 
witli  the  former,  than  non  etHt  impossibile  apud 
Deum  0171716  verbimi  with  the  latter.  Nevertheless, 
in  a  few  instances,  an  immoderate  passion  for  clas- 
sical phraseology  has,  as  we  have  seen,  betrayed 
him  into  obscurities,  and  even  blunders,  of  which 
inferior  interpreters  were  in  no  danger. 

§  8.  To  illustrate  the  different  effects  on  the 
appearance  of  the  sacred  penmen,  produced  by 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  191 

the  opposite  modes  of  translating;,  which  Arias 
and  Castalio  have  adopted,  I  shall  employ  a 
similitude  of  which  Castalio  himself  has  given 
me  the  hint.  In  his  epistle  dedicatory  to  king 
Edward,  he  has  these  words*:  Quod  ad  latinita- 
tem  attinet,  est  oratio  nihil  aliud  quam  rei  qiicBdam 
quasi  vestis,  et  nos  sartores  sumus.  In  conformity 
to  this  idea,  I  should  say  that  those  venerable 
writers  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  appear,  in 
their  own  country,  in  a  garb  plain  indeed,  and 
even  homely,  but  grave  withal,  decent,  and  well 
fitted  to  the  wearers.  Arias,  intending  to  intro- 
duce them  to  the  Latins,  has,  to  make  them  look 
as  little  as  possible  like  other  men,  and,  one 
would  think,  to  frighten  every  body  from  desiring 
their  acquaintance,  clothed  them  in  filthy  rags, 
which  are  indeed  of  Roman  manufacture,  but 
have  no  other  relation  to  any  thing  worn  in  the 
country,  being  alike  unfit  for  every  purpose  of 
decency  and  use.  For  surely  that  style  is  most 
aptly  compared  to  tattered  garments,  in  which  the 
words  can,  by  no  rule  of  syntax  in  the  language, 
be  rendered  coherent,  or  expressive  of  any  sense. 
Castalio,  on  the  contrary,  not  satisfied  that,  when 
abroad,  they  should  be  gravely  and  properly 
habited,  as  they  were  at  home,  will  have  them 
tricked  up  in  finery  and  lace,  that  they  may  ap- 
pear like  men  of  fashion,  and  even  make  some 
figure  in,  what  the  world  calls,  good  company. 
But,  though  I  consider  both  these  interpreters  as 
in  extremes,  I  am  far  from  thinking  their  perform- 
ances are  to  be  deemed,  in  any  respect,  equivalent. 


192  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

It  is  not  in  my  power  to  discover  a  good  use  that 
can  be  made  of  Arias'  version,  unless  to  give  some 
assistance  to  a  school-boy  in  acquiring  the  elements 
of  the  language.  Castalio's,  with  one  great  fault, 
has  many  excellent  qualities. 

§  9.  In  regard  to  the  third  object  of  translating, 
which  is  to  write  so  far  properly  and  agreeably 
in  the  language  into  which  the  translation  is 
made,  as  may,  independently  of  its  exactness, 
serve  to  recommend  it  as  a  valuable  work  in  that 
tongue  ;  if  Castalio  failed  here,  he  has  been 
particularly  unlucky,  since  the  latinity  and 
elegance  of  the  work  must,  by  his  own  acknow- 
ledgment, have  been  more  an  object  to  him  than 
to  other  translators,  this  being  the  great  means  by 
which  he  wanted  to  draw  the  attention  of  the 
youth  of  that  age  to  the  study  of  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures. But  however  much  his  taste  may,  in  this 
respect,  have  been  adapted  to  the  times  wherein 
he  lived,  we  cannot  consider  it  as  perfectly  chaste 
and  faultless.  Sufficient  grounds  for  this  censure 
may  be  collected  from  the  remarks  already  made. 
The  superficial  and  the  shining  qualities  of  style 
seem  often  to  have  had  more  attractions  with  him 
than  the  solid  and  the  useful. 

§  10.  In  other  respects  he  appears  to  have  been 
well  qualified  for  the  task  of  translating.  Con- 
versant in  the  learned  languages,  possessed  of  a 
good  understanding,  and  no  inconsiderable  share 
of  critical  acuteness,  candid  in  his  disposition,  and 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  193 

not  over-confident  of  his  own  abilities,  or  exces- 
sively tenacious  of  his  own  opinion,  he  was  ever 
ready  to  hearken,  and,  when  convinced,  to  submit, 
to  reason,  whether  presented  by  a  friend,  or  by  a 
foe,  whether  in  terms  of  amity  and  love,  or  of 
reproach  and  hatred.  Of  this  he  gave  very  ample 
evidence,  in  the  corrections  which  he  made,  on 
some  of  the  later  editions  of  his  Bible. 

He  was  far  from  pretending,  like  some  inter- 
preters and  commentators,  to  understand  every 
thing.  When  he  was  uncertain  about  the  sense, 
he  could  do  no  other  than  follow  the  words  in 
translating.  JThis  expression  of  the  Apostle  Pe- 
ter ^^,  jEis  tovto  yag  xai  vsxgois  EvyiyyaXiaOij^  'iva 
xgid'adL  fisv  xara  avd-gconovs  aagxi,  tf^ai  da  xaia 
0SOV  TtvsvfiaTL,  he  translates  in  this  manner,  JVam 
ideo  mortuis  quoqiie  nimciatus  est,  tit  et  secundum 
homines  came  judicentur  et  secundum  Deum  spiri- 
tu  vivant  ;  adding  this  note  on  the  margin  :  Hunc 
locum  non  intelligo,  ideoque  ad  verbum  transtuli. 
There  are  several  other  such  instances.  In  one 
place  he  has  on  the  margin  :  Hos  duos  versus  non 
intelligo,  ideoque  de  mea  translatione  dubito^^. 
It  is  worth  while  to  take  notice  of  the  manner  in 
which  he  himself  speaks  of  such  passages  : 
"  Quod  autem  alicubi  scribo,  me  aliquem  locum 
"  non  intelligere  :  id  non  ita  accipi  volo,  quasi  cae- 
"  tera  plane  intelligam  :  sed  ut  sciatur,  me  in  aliis 
"  aliquid  saltem  obscurse  lucis  habere,  in  illis 
"  nihil  :     turn     autem    ut    mese     translationi     in 

*2  1  Pet.  iv.  6.  53  Isaiah,  xxvii.  6,  7. 


194  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

"  quibusdam  hujusmodi  locis  non  nimium  confida- 
"  tur.  Neque  tamen  iibique  quid  non  intelligam 
"  ostendo  :  esset  enini  hoc  infinitum  ^^" 


§  11.  With  respect  to  the  changes  he  made, 
in  adopting  classical  terms  instead  of  certain 
words  and  phrases,  which  had  been  long  in  use 
amongst  ecclesiastic  writers,  and  were  supposed 
to  be  universally  understood,  I  cannot  agree  en- 
tirely with,  either  his  sentiments,  or  those  of  his 
adversaries.  In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  think,  as 
he  seems  once  to  have  thought  (though,  in  this 
respect,  he  afterwards  altered  his  conduct,  and 
consequently,  we  may  suppose,  his  opinion,)  that 
no  word  deserved  admission  into  his  version, 
which  had  not  the  sanction  of  some  Pagan  classic. 
For  this  reason,  the  words  baptisma,  angelus^ 
ecclesia^proselytus^  synagoga,  propheta,  patriarcha^ 
mediator,  dcemoniacus,  hypocrita,  benedichis,  and 
the  words  fides  and  Jidelis,  when  used  in  the  theo- 
logical sense,  he  set  aside  for  lotio,  genius,  respub- 
lica,  adventitius,  collegium,  vates,  summits  pater, 
sequester,  furiosus,  simulator,  collaudandus,Jiducia, 
fidens.  Some  of  the  more  usual  terms,  as  ange- 
lus,  baptisma,  ecclesia,  synagoga,  were,  in  later 
editions,  replaced.  In  regard  to  some  others, 
considering  the  plan  he  had  adopted,  his  choice 
cannot  be  much  blamed,  as  they  were  sufficiently 
expressive  of  the  sense  of  the  original.  A  few, 
indeed,  were  not  so. 

^^  Ad  lectores  admonitio. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  195 

Genius  is  not  a  version  of  ayyeXos,  nor  furiosns 
of  Saifiovi^ofisvos.  The  notions  entertained  by  the 
heathen  of  their  genii,  no  more  corresponded  to 
the  ideas  of  the  Hebrews  concerning  angels,  than 
the  fancies  which  our  ancestors  entertained  of 
elves  and  fairies,  corresponded  to  the  Christian 
doctrine  concerning  the  heavenly  inhabitants. 
Ayyslos  was  a  literal  version  made  by  the  Seven- 
ty into  Greek,  of  the  Hebrew  "iN/D  malach,  a  { 
name  of  office  which,  if  Castalio  after  them  had  I 
literally  rendered  into  Latin,  calling  it  nuntius,  it  1 
would  have  been  as  little  liable  to  exception,  as  his 
rendering  the  words  ^aoiXsvg  and  vTttfgsTijs,  rex 
and  minister.  Furiosns  is  not  a  just  translation  of 
Saifiovi^ofisvos.  The  import  of  the  original  name, 
which  only  suggests  the  cause,  is  confined,  by  the 
translator's  opinion,  to  the  nature  of  the  disorder : 
furiosns  means  no  more  than  mad,  whereas  dai^o- 
vi^ofisvos  is,  repeatedly  in  Scripture,  given  as 
equivalent  to  Satfioviov  e^^v.  Nor  does  the  dis- 
ease of  those  unhappy  persons  appear  to  have 
been  always  madness.  And  if,  in  this,  we  regard 
etymology  alone,  the  traditionary  fables,  about 
the  three  infernal  goddesses,  called  furies,  are  no 
way  suited  to  the  ancient  popular  faith,  of  either 
Jews  or  Pagans,  concerning  demons.  And  even 
though  adventiiius  corresponds  exactly  in  ety- 
mology with  ngodiiXvTo?,  the  Latin  word  does  not 
convey  the  idea  which,  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom, 
is  conveyed  by  the  Greek.  Simulator  can  hardly 
be  objected  to,  as  a  version  of  vitoxgLirf?.  In  some 
instances,  it  answers  better  than  hypocrita.  This 
name  is,  in  Latin,  confined,  by  use,  to  those  who 


196  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

lead  a  life  of  dissimulation  in  what  regards  re- 
ligion ;  whereas  the  Greek  term  is  sometimes  em- 
ployed in  the  New  Testament,  in  all  the  latitude 
in  which  we  commonly  use  the  word  dissembler, 
for  one  who  is  insincere  in  a  particular  instance. 
But  the  classical  word  collaudandus  does  not  suit 
the  Greek  svXoyi^jog  as  used  in  holy  writ,  near  so 
well  as  does  the  ecclesiastical  epithet  benedictus. 
And  summiis  pater  is  too  indefinite  a  version  of 

It  is  a  good  rule,  in  every  language,  to  take  the 
necessary  terms  in  every  branch  of  knowledge  or 
business,  from  those  best  acquainted  with  that 
branch  :  because,  among  them,  the  extent  of  the 
terms,  and  their  respective  differences,  will  be 
most  accurately  distinguished.  In  what,  therefore, 
peculiarly  concerned  the  undisputed  tenets,  or 
rites,  either  of  Judaism  or  of  Christianity,  it  was 
much  more  reasonable  to  adopt  the  style  used  by 
Latin  Jews  or  Christians,  in  those  early  ages,  be- 
fore they  were  corrupted  with  philosophy,  than, 
with  the  assistance  of  but  a  remote  analogy,  to 
transfer  terms  used  by  Pagan  writers,  to  the, doc- 
trines and  ceremonies  of  a  religion  with  which  they 
were  totally  unacquainted.  I  must,  therefore,  con- 
sider the  rejection  of  several  terms  established  by 
ecclesiastic  use,  and  conveying  precisely  the 
idea  intended  by  the  sacred  penmen,  as  an  indi- 
cation of  an  excessive  squeamishness  in  point  of 
Latinity.  Such  terms,  in  my  judgment^  are,  in 
matters  of  revelation,  entitled  even  to  be  preferred 
to  classical  words.     For,  tliough  the  latter   may 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  197 

nearly  suit  the  idea,  they  cannot  have,  to  the  same 
degree  as  the  former,  the  sanction  of  use  in  that 
application. 

§  12.  But,  let  it  be  observe(5,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  the  preference  above  mentioned,  is  limited 
by  this  express  condition,  that  the  ecclesiastic 
term,  in  its  common  acceptation,  plainly  convey 
to  the  reader  the  same  idea  which  the  original 
word,  used  by  the  saf;red  penmen,  was  intended 
to  convey  to  the  readers  for  whom  they  wrote. 
To  plead,  on  the  contrary,  with  Father  Simon  and 
others,  for  th^  preferable  adoption  of  certain  theo- 
logic  words  and  phrases  consecrated  by  long  use, 
as  the}^  are  pleased  to  term  it,  though  admitted 
to  be  obscure,  ambiguous,  or  even  improper,  is  to 
me  the  greatest  absurdity.  It  is  really  to  make 
the  sacred  authors  give  place  to  their  ancient  in- 
terpreters :  it  is  to  throw^  away  the  sense  of  the 
former  in  compliment  to  the  words  of  the  latter. 
We  must  surely  consider  inspiration  as  a  thing  of 
very  little  consequence,  when  we  sacrifice  it 
knowingly  to  human  errors.  This  would,  in  ef- 
fect, condemn  all  new  translations,  ^vhatever  oc- 
casion there  might  be  for  them,  for  correcting  the 
faults  of  former  versions.  But  into  the  truth  of 
this  sentiment  I  shall  have  occasion  to  inquire 
more  fully  afterwards.  Only  let  it  be  remember- 
ed, that  the  limitation  now  mentioned  affects  two 
classes  of  words,  first,  those  by  which  the  original 
terms  were  early  mis-translated ;  secondl}-,  those 
which,  though  at  first  they  exhibited  the  true 
VOL.  II.  25 


198  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

sense  of  the  original,  have  come  gradually  to  con- 
vey a  different  meaning.  For  these,  in  conse- 
quence of  a  change  insensibly  introduced  in  the 
application,  are  become  now,  whatever  they  were 
formerly,  either  improper  or  ambiguous. 

There  are  some  terms  in  the  Vulgate  which,  in 
my  judgment,  were  never  perfectly  adapted  to 
those  in  the  original,  in  whose  place  they  were 
substituted.  Whether  sacramentum  for  fivoTt^giov 
were  originally  of  this  number  or  not,  it  is  certain 
that  the  theological  meaning,  now  constantly 
affixed  to  that  word,  does  not  suit  the  sense  of  the 
sacred  authors,  which  is  fully  and  intelligibly  ex- 
pressed in  Latin,  as  Castalio  and  Houbigant  have 
commonly  done,  by  the  word  arcanum.  The 
Vulgate  sometimes  renders  it  myster'mm,  which  is 
not  not  much  better  than  sacramentum.  For  mys- 
teriiim,  not  being  Latin,  and  being  variously  used 
as  a  technical  term  by  theologians,  must  be  vague 
and  obscure.  Many  other  latinized  Greek  words 
(as  scandalizo,  blasphemia,  haresis,  schisma)  are 
in  some  measure  liable  to  the  same  objection. 
The  original  terms  are  none  of  those,  Which  were 
observed  formerly  "  not  to  be  susceptible  of  a 
translation  into  another  language.  And  in  that 
case  to  transfer  the  words,  leaving  them  untrans- 
lated, rarely  fails  either  to  keep  the  reader  in  ig- 
norance, or  to  lead  him  into  error.  For  this 
reason,  I  am  far  from  condemning,  with  Boys,  Si- 
mon, and    some    others,    tlie   modern   translators, 

55  Diss.  II.  Part  I.  §  5. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  199 

particularly  Castalio,  for  rendering  them  into 
proper  Latin.  I  intend,  in  another  Dissertation, 
to  evince  that  they  would  not  have  executed 
faithfully  the  office  they  had  undertaken,  if  they 
had  not  done  it.  The  words  with  which  Castalio 
has  commonly  supplied  us,  instead  of  those  above 
mentioned  {officio^  maledictum,  or  impia  dicta, 
secta,  dissidium,  or  /actio,)  are  in  general  as  appo- 
site for  expressing  the  sense  of  the  original,  as 
any  other  words  of  the  same  class.  And  even  the 
Vulgate  is  not  uniform  in  regard  to  those  words. 
'AigsdLs  is,  in  several  places  of  that  version,  ren- 
dered secta,  ^diwdi  c^LOfia  scissiira  and  dissensio. 
But  of  this  I  have  treated  already  in  the  preceding 
Dissertation. 

§  13.  After  all  the  zeal  Castalio  has  shown, 
and  the  stretches  he  has  made  for  preserving  clas- 
sical purity,  could  it  have  been  imagined  that  he 
would  have  admitted  into  his  version,  manifest 
barbarisms,  both  words  and  idioms,  of  no  authority 
whatever  ?  Yet  that  he  has  afforded  a  few  in- 
stances of  this  strange  inconsistency,  is  unques- 
tionable. It  would  not  be  easy  to  assign  a  satisfac- 
tory reason  for  his  rejecting  the  term  idolum  idol, 
a  classical  word,  and  used  by  Pagans  in  the  same 
meaning  in  which  it  is  used  by  us.  If  it  be  said, 
that  in  their  use,  it  was  not  accompanied  with  the 
same  kind  of  sentiment  as  when  used  by  us ;  as 
much  may  be  affirmed  with  truth  of  Deus,  JVu- 
men,  and  every  word  that  relates  to  religion, 
which  could  not  fail  to  affect  differently  the  mind 
of  a  heathen,  from  the  way.  in  which  it  affects  the 


200  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

mind  of  a  Jew  or  a  Christian.  Ought  we  to  have 
different  names  for  the  Pagan  deities,  Jupiter, 
Juno,  &c.  because  the  mention  of  them  was  at- 
tended with  reverence  in  Pagans,  and  with  con- 
tempt in  Christians  ? 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  his  supplying  idolum, 
by  a  barbarism  of  his  own,  deaster,  a  word  of  no 
authority,  sacred  or  profane  ?  It  suited  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  his  undertaking  to  reject 
idolatra,  idolater,  because,  though  analogically 
formed  from  a  good  word,  it  could  plead  only  ec- 
clesiastic use.  But,  by  what  principle,  he  has 
introduced  such  a  monster  as  deastricola,  that  was 
never  heard  of  before,  it  Avould  be  impossible  to 
say.  He  could  be  at  no  loss  for  a  proper  expres- 
sion. Idolorum  or  simulacroriim  cultor  would 
have  served.  He  has  given  but  too  good  reason, 
by  such  uncouth  sounds  as  deaster,  deastricola, 
and  injidens  infidel,  to  say  that  his  objections  lay 
only  against  the  liberties  in  language  which  had 
been  taken  by  others.  Castalio  argues  against 
barbarisms  as  being  obscure ;  surely  this  argu- 
ment strikes  more  against  those  of  his  own  coin- 
ing, than  against  those  (if  they  can  be  called 
barbarisms)  which  are  recommended  by  so  long 
continued,  and  so  extensive,  an  use.  For,  though 
he  should  not  allow  the  use  of  theologians  to 
be  perfectly  good,  it  is  surely,  on  those  subjects, 
sufficient  for  removing  the  objection  of  obscurity. 
I  do  not  see  any  thing,  in  his  worTc,  which  has  so 
much  the  appearance  of  self-conceit  as  this.  In 
other  respects,  I  find  him  modest  and  unassuming. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  201 

It  has  been  also  observed,  that  his  idioms  are  not 
always  pure.  Dominus  ad  cujus  normam,  is  not 
in  the  Latin  idiom.  Jforma  legis  is  proper,  not 
norma  Dei,  or  norma  hominis.  But  this  I  consider 
as  an  oversight,  the  other  as  affectation. 

§  14.  I  SHALL  add  a  few  words  on  the  subject 
of  Hebraisms,  which    Castalio  is   accused  of  re- 
jecting altogether.     This  charge  he  is  so  far  from 
denying,   that   he  endeavours  to  justify  his  con- 
duct  in   this  particular.     Herein,  I  think,   if  his 
adversaries  went  too  far  on  one  side,  in  preferring 
the  mere  forpi  of  the   expression,  to  the  perspic- 
uous  enunciation   of  the  sense  ;    this   interpreter 
went  too  far  on  the  opposite  side,  as  he  made  no 
account  of  giving  to  his  version  the  strong  signa- 
tures which  the   original  bears   of  the   antiquity, 
the   manners,  and  the  character,  of  the  age  and 
nation  of  the  writers.     Yet  both  the  credibility  of 
the  narrative,  and  the  impression  which  the  senti- 
ments are  adapted  to  make  on  the  readers,  are  not 
a   little    affected    by    that    circumstance.       That 
those  are  in  the  worse  extreme  of  the  two,  who 
would  sacrifice  perspicuity  and  propriety  (in  other 
words,  the  sense  itself)  to   that  circumstance,  is 
not  indeed  to  be  doubted.     The  patrons  of  the 
literal  method  do  not  advert  that,  by  carrying  the 
point  too  far,  the  very  exhibition  of  the  style  and 
manner  of  the  author,  is,  with  both  the  other  ends 
of  translating,  totally   annihilated.      "  Quo  perti- 
"  nent,"  says  Houbigant^^  "  istiusmodi  interpre- 

56  Proleg. 


202  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

"  tationes,  quae  nihil  quidquam  resonant,  nisi 
"  adhibes  interpretis  alterum  interpretem  ?"  Again, 
"  Num  proprietas  hsec  censenda  est,  quae  mihi 
"  exprimat  obscure  ac  inhumane,  id  quod  sacri 
"  scriptores  dilucide  ac  liberaliter  expresserunt  ?" 
The  sentiments  of  this  author,  in  regard  to  the 
proper  mean  between  both  extremes,  as  they 
seem  entirely  reasonable,  and  equally  applicable 
to  any  language  (though  expressed  in  reference  to 
Latin  versions  only,)  I  shall  subjoin  to  the  fore- 
going observations  on  Castalio  :  "  Utroque  in 
"  genere  tam  metrico  quam  soluto,  retinendas 
"  esse  veteres  loquendi  formas,  nee  ab  ista  linea 
"  unquam  discedendum,  nisi  gravibus  de  causis, 
"  quae  quidem  nobis  esse  tres  videntur  :  primo,  si 
"  Hebraismi  veteres,  cum  retinentur,  fiunt  Latino 
"  in  sermone,  vel  obscuri  vel  ambigui  ;  secundo, 
"  si  eorum  significantia  minuitur,  nisi  circuitione 
"  quadam  uteris  ;  tertio,  si  vergant  ad  aliam,  quam 
"  Hebraica  verba,  sententiara"."  -: 

§  15.  I  SHALL  finish  my  critique  on  this  trans- 
lator, with  some  remarks  on  a  charge  brought 
against  him  by  Beausobre  and  Lenfant,  who  af- 
firm ^^  that,  abstracting  from  the  false  elegance  of 
his  style,  he  takes  greater  liberty  (they  must  cer- 
tainly mean  with  the  sense)  than  a  faithful  inter- 
preter ought  to  take.  Of  this  his  version  of  the 
following  passage  ^^  is  given  as  an  example.     Tov 

^'^  Ibidem, 
58  Preface  Generale,  P.  II.  des  Versions  du  N.  T. 
59  Acts,  xxvi.  18. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  203 

ntiaigt-^iaL  arco  axorovg  £i?  (pa?,  xat  tt/s  s^ovaias 
Tov  2^aTava  sm  zov  0sov,  jov  Xa(3eiv  aviovs  acps- 
aiv  dfiagTicov,  ocai  x}.rjgov  sv  tois  ri^^iadfASvois,  tzictsl 
Ttf  €is  s^£  ;  which  is  thus  translated  by  Castalio  : 
"  Ut  ex  tenebris  in  lucem,  etjex  Satanse  potestate 
"  ad  Deum  se  convertaiiv,  et  ita  peccatorum  veni- 
"  am,  et  eandem  cum  iis  sortem  consequantur,  qui 
"  fide  mihi  habenda  sancti  facti  fuerint  :"  and  by 
Beza,  whom  they  here  oppose  to  him  :  "  Et  con- 
"  vertas  eos  a  tenebris  ad  lucem,  et  a  potestate 
"  Satanse  ad  Deum,  ut  remissionem  peccatorum  et 
"  sortem  inter  sanctificatos  accipiant  per  fidem 
"  quse  est  in  me."  In  my  opinion  there  is  a  real 
ambiguity  in*"  the  original,  which  if  Castalio  be 
blameable  for  fixing,  in  one  way,  Beza  is  not  less 
blameable  for  fixing,  it,  in  another.  The  words 
7tiGT£L  Ty  €is  f|Uf,  may  be  construed  with  the  verb 
Xa^Hv  at  some  distance,  or  with  the  participle 
7f^iaa[x€voLg,  immediately  preceding.  In  the  com- 
mon way  of  reckoning,  if  one  of  these  methods 
were  to  be  styled  a  stretch,  or  a  liberty,  it  would 
be  Beza's,  and  not  Castalio's  ;  both  because  the 
latter  keeps  closer  to  the  arrangement  of  the 
original,  and  because  the  Apostle,  not  having  used 
the  adjective  aytoig  but  the  participle  yyiaafisvotg, 
gives  some  ground  to  regard  the  following  words 
as  its  regimen.  Accordingly,  Beza  has  consid- 
ered the  version  of  Erasmus,  which  is  to  the 
same  purpose  with  Castalio's,  and  with  which  the 
Tigurine  version  also  agrees  ;  "  ut  accipiant  re- 
"  missionem  peccatorum,  et  sortem  inter  eos  qui 
"  sanctificati  sunt,  per  fidem  quae  est  erga  me  ;" 
as  exhibiting  a  sense  quite  different  from  his  own ; 


204  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

at  the  same  time,  he  freely  acknowledges,  that  the 
original  is  susceptible  of  either  meaning.  "  Tri 
"  niGTSL.  Potest  quidem  hoc  referri  ad  participi- 
"  um  rfyiaofisvois,  quemadmodum  retulit  Erasmus." 
In  this  instance,  Beza,  though  not  remarkable  for 
moderation,  has  judged  more  equitably  than  the 
French  translators  above  mentioned,  who  had  no 
reason  to  affirm,  dogmatically,  that  the  words 
ought  to  be  joined  in  the  one  way,  and  not  in  the 
other  ;  or  to  conclude  that  Castalio  affected  to 
give  the  words  this  turn,  in  order  to  exclude  the 
idea  of  absolute  election.  Did  the  English  trans- 
lators, for  this  purpose,  render  the  passage  after 
Erasmus  and  Castalio,  not  after  Beza,  That  they 
may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins ^  and  inherit ajice 
among  them  ivhich  are  sanctified  by  faith  that  is  in 
me  ?     Nobod} ,  I  dare  say,  will  suspect  it. 

I  cannot  help  thinking  those  critics  unlucky  in 
their  choice  of  an  example  :  for  had  there  been 
more  to  say,  in  opposition  to  this  version  of  the 
passage,  than  has  yet  been  urged,  it  would  still 
have  been  hard  to  treat  that  as  a  liberty  peculiar 
to  Castalio,  in  Avhich  he  was  evidently  not  the  first, 
and  in  which  he  has  had  the  concurrence  of  more 
translators,  than  can  be  produced  on  the  other 
side.  For  my  part,  as  I  acknowledge  that  such 
transpositions  are  not  unfrequent  in  holy  writ,  ni}^ 
opinion  is,  that  the  connection  and  scope  of  the 
place  ought  chiefly  to  determine  us  in  doubtful 
cases.  In  the  present  case,  it  appears  to"  me  to 
yield  the  clearest  sense,  and  to  be  every  way  the 
most  eligible,  to  join  the  words  nidTU  xrj  sl?  f^af, 
neither  to  ^yLaoi{.ievoLs,  nor  to  ka^aiv,  but  to  the  fore- 


F.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  205 

going  verb  STtidTgeyjaL ;  for  when  the  regimen  is 
thrown  to  the  end  of  the  sentence,  it  is  better  to 
join  it  to  the  first  verb,  with  which  it  can  be  suita- 
bly construed,  than  to  an  intermediate  verb,  expli- 
cative of  the  former.  Nothing  can  give  a  more 
plain,  or  a  more  apposite,  meaning,  than  the  words 
under  examination,  thus  construed ;  To  bring 
them  by  the  faith  that  is  in  me  (that  is,  by  my  doc- 
trine, the  faith,  '?^  tckjtls  being  often  used  by  the 
sacred  writers  for  the  object  of  faith,  or  thing 
believed,)  from  darkness  to  light,  &c. 

§  16.  Thuj,  I  have  endeavoured  to  examine, 
with  impartiality,  Castalio's  character  as  a  trans- 
lator, without  assuming  the  province  of  either  the 
accuser  or  the  apologist.  I  have  neither  exag- 
gerated, nor  extenuated,  either  his  faults  or  his 
virtues,  and  can  pronounce  truly,  upon  the  whole, 
that  though  there  are  none  (Arias  and  Pagnin 
excepted,)  whose  general  manner  of  translating  is 
more  to  be  disapproved  ;  I  know  not  any  by 
which  a  student  may  be  more  assisted  in  attaining 
the  true  sense  of  many  places,  very  obscure  in 
most  translations,  than  by  Castalio's. 


VOL.  II.  26 


206  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 


PART  V. 


STRICTURES    ON    BEZA. 


Beza,  the  celebrated  Geneva  translator  of  the 
New  Testament,  cannot  be  accused  of  having 
crone  to  either  of  the  extremes  in  which  we  find 
Arias  and  Castalio.  In  general,  he  is  neither  ser- 
vilely literal,  barbarous,  and  unintelligible,  with 
the  former  ;  nor  does  he  appear  ashamed  of  the 
unadorned  simplicity  of  the  original,  with  the  lat- 
ter. It  was, .  therefore,  at  first,  my  intention  not 
to  criticise  his  version,  no  more  than  to  inquire 
into  the  manner  of  all  the  Latin  translators  of 
sacred  writ,  but  barely  to  point  out  the  most  egre- 
gious faults  in  the  plan  of  translating  sometimes 
adopted,  specifying,  in  the  way  of  example  and 
illustration,  those  versions  only,  wherein  such 
faults  were  most  conspicuous.  On  more  mature 
reflection,  I  have  judged  it  proper  to  bestow  a 
few  thoughts  on  Beza,  as  his  translation  has,  in  a 
great  measure,  been  made  the  standard  of  most  of 
the  translations  of  the  reformed  churches  (I  do 
not  include  the  Lutheran)  into  modern  tongues. 
He  has,  perhaps,  had  less  influence  on  the  Eng- 
lish translators,  than  on  those  of  other  countries  ; 
but  he  has  not  been  entirely  without  influence, 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  207 

even  on  them.  And,  though  he  writes  with  a 
good  deal  of  purity  and  clearness,  without  florid 
and  ostentatious  ornaments ;  there  are  some  faults, 
which  it  is  of  great  moment  to  avoid,  and  with 
which  he  is,  upon  the  whole,  more  chargeable, 
than  any  other  translator  of  the  New  Testament  I 
know. 

§  2.  His  version  of  the  New  Testament  is  near- 
ly in  the  same  taste  with  that  of  the  Old,  by 
Junius  and  Tremellius,  but  better  executed. 
These  two  translations  are  commonly  bound  to- 
gether, to  complete  the  version  of  holy  writ. 
Junius  and  Tremellius  have  been  accused  of  ob- 
truding upon  the  sacred  text,  a  number  of  pro- 
nouns, ille^  hie,  and  iste,  for  which  the  original 
gives  no  warrant.  Their  excuse  was,  that  the 
Latin  has  not  articles,  as  the  Hebrew,  and  that 
there  is  no  other  way  of  supplying  the  articles, 
but  by  pronouns.  But  it  may,  with  reason,  be 
questioned,  whether  it  were  not  better,  except  in 
a  few  cases,  to  leave  them  unsupplied,  than  to 
substitute  what  may  darken  the  expression,  and 
even  render  it  more  indefinite,  nay,  what  may 
sometimes  alter  the  sense.  At  the  same  time,  I 
acknowledge  that  there  are  cases  in  which  this 
method  is  entirely  proper.  In  the  edition  of  an 
emphatic  epithet,  the  article  is  fitly  supplied  by 
the  pronoun.  Thus  the  words,  Eneas  Ba^vXav 
7f  Tiokis  '7/  fisyaXtf  ^°,  are  justly  translated  by  Beza, 
Cecidit  Babylon  urbs  ilia  magna  :   and  the  ex- 

«o  Rev.  xiv,  8. 


208  PRELIMINARY  .     [d.  x. 

pression  used  by  Nathan  to  David,  Thou  art  the 
man  ^\  is  properly  rendered  by  Junius,  Tu  vir  ille 
es.  The  necessity  of  recurring  to  the  pronoun,  in 
these  instances,  has  been  perceived  also  by  the 
old  translator  and  Castalio. 

Nor  are  these  the  only  cases  wherein  the  Greek 
or  Hebrew  article  may,  not  only  in  Latin,  but 
even  in  English,  which  has  articles,  be  rendered 
properly  by  the  pronoun.  For  example,  a  par- 
ticular species  is  distinguished  from  others  of  the 
same  genus,  by  some  attributive  conjoined  with 
it ;  but  when  the  occasion  of  mentioning  that 
species  soon  recurs,  the  attributive  is  sufficiently 
supplied  by  the  article  ;  and,  in  such  instances,  it 
often  happens,  that  the  article  is  best  supplied,  in 
another  language,  by  the  pronoun.  In  the  ques- 
tion put  to  our  Lord,  Ti  ayad'ov  non^ao),  "^iva  s^ci 
^or^v  aiaviov  ^^,  a  species  of  life  to  which  the  ques- 
tion relates,  is  distinguished  from  all  others,  by 
the  epithet  ataviov.  The  article  would  contribute 
nothing:  here  to  the  distinction.  But  when,  in  the 
answer  ^^  the  same  subject  is  referred  to,  the 
epithet  is  dropped,  and  the  article  is  prefixed  to 
^atfv,  which  ascertains  the  meaning  with  equal  per- 
spicuity. El  8e  d'sksis  SLdeXd-eiv  eis  Trjv  Ico-qv.  I  have 
seen  no  Latin  translation,  no  not  Beza's,  which 
renders  it,  Si  vis  in  vitam  illam  ingredi ;  and  yet 
it  is  evident,  that  such  is,  in  this  passage,  the  force 
of  the  article.  The  English  idiom  rarely  permits 
us  to  give  articles  to  abstract  nouns.  For  this 
reason,  it  would  not  be  a  just  expression  of  the 

"  2  Sam.  xii.  7.  e^  Matth.  xix.  16.  e^  17, 


p.  V.J  DISSERTATIONS.    '  209 

sense  to  say,  If  thou  wouldst  enter  into  the 
life,  to  wit,  eternal  life,  the  life  inquired  about. 
Our  only  way  of  marking  the  reference  to  the 
question,  is  by  saying,  If  thou  ivouldst  enter  into 
that  life.  As,  in  French,  the  article  is,  on  the 
contrary,  added  to  all  abstract  nouns,  the  pronoun 
is  equally  necessary  with  them  as  with  us,  for 
making  the  distinction.  There  is,  besides,  some- 
thing like  an  impropriety  in  saying  to  the  living.  If 
thou  wouldst  enter  into  life. 

But  there  are,  unquestionably,  cases  in  which 
the  Genevese  interpreters  employ  the  pronoun 
unnecessarilvj  awkwardly,  and  even  improperly. 
In  that  day  shall  the  deaf  hear  the  words  of  the 
book  ^*,  say  the  English  translators.  Audient  die 
ilia  surdi  isti  verba  literarum,  say  Junius  and  his 
associate.  Any  person  who  understands  Latin, 
on  hearing  the  verse  read  by  itself,  will  suppose 
that  there  must  have  been  mention  of  some  deaf 
persons  in  the  foregoing  verses,  to  w  hich  the  pro-  • 
noun  isti,  in  this  verse,  has  a  reference.  But,  on 
inquiry,  he  will  find  there  is  no  such  thing ;  and 
that  it  is  deaf  persons  in  general  of  whom  the 
Prophet  speaks.  The  introduction  of  the  pro- 
noun, therefore,  serves  only  to  mislead.  Mat- 
thcBus  ille  publicanus  ^^,  in  Beza!s  version,  evidently 
suggests,  that  Matthew  was  a  man  famous  as  a 
publican,  before  he  became  an  Apostle.  Though 
our  language  has  articles,  the  Geneva  England  in- 
terpreters have  here  copied  Beza  so  servilely  as 
to  say,  Matthew  that  publican.     This  manner,  in 

'       «■*  Isaiah,  xxix.  18.  «5  ]vtatth.  x.  5. 


210  ,  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

some  places,  not  only  appears  awkward,  but  in- 
jures the  simplicity  of  the  style.     Junius  says,  in 
his  account  of  the  creation,  Dixit  Deus,  Esto  lux, 
etfuit  lux ;  viditque  Deus  lucem  hanc  esse  bonam : 
et   distinctionem  fecit  Deus  inter  hanc   lucem  et 
tenehras^^.     Here,    I  think,   the  pronoun   is   not 
only  unnecessary  and  affected,  but  suggests  some- 
thing ridiculous,  as  if  that  light  only  had  been  dis- 
tinguished from   darkness.      However,  as   lux   is 
first  mentioned,  without  an  attendant,  the  pronoun 
which  attends  it,  when  mentioned  afterwards,  does 
not  make  the  expression  so  indefinite  and  obscure 
as  in  the  former  example.     But,  when  Beza  makes 
the  Evangelist  say^^,  Jonas  genuit  Jechoniam  in 
transportatione  ilia  Babylonica ;  post  autem  trans- 
portationem  illam  Babylonicam,  Jechonias  genuit 
Salathielem ;  what  more  is  expressed,  in  relation 
to  the  period,  than  if  he  had  said  simply,  in  trans- 
portatione   Babylonica,  et  post  transportationem 
Babylonicam  ?  The  addition  of  this  epithet  makes 
the  noun    sufficiently    definite,   without   any   pro- 
noun.    Nay,  does  not  the  pronoun,  thus  superadd- 
ed, suggest   one  of  two  things ;    either  that  the 
transportation,  here  referred  to,  had  been  mention- 
ed in  the  preceding  words,  or  that  the  historian 
meant  to  distinguish,  out  of  several  transportations, 
one  more  noted  than  the  rest  .'*    Now,  neither  of 
these  was  the   case :  no  mention  had  been  made 
before,  of  the  Babylonian  transportation ;  and  there 
were    not   more   Babylonian    transportations,    or 

«5  Gen.  i.  3,  4.  ^^  Matth.  i.  11,  12 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  211 

more  transportations  an}^  whither,  than  one  which 
the  Jewish  nation  had  undergone.  With  this 
fault  Erasmus  also  is  chargeable,  but  much  sel- 
domer.  Greek,  as  well  as  Hebrew,  has  an  article, 
and  so  have  modern  languages.  But,  in  translat- 
ing out  of  these  into  Latin,  nobody,  I  believe,  has 
ever,  either  before  or  since,  thought  of  making 
the  pronoun  supply  the  article,  except  in  a  few 
special  instances,  such  as  those  above  excepted. 
In  such  instances,  I  acknowledge,  there  is  an  evi- 
dent propriety. 

§  3.  Beza^  with  natural  talents  considerably 
above  the  middle  rate,  had  a  good  deal  of  learning, 
and  understood  well  both  Greek  and  Latin ;  but 
he  neither  knew  Hebrew  (though  he  had  the  as- 
sistance of  some  who  knew  it,)  nor  does  he  seem 
to  have  been  much  conversant  in  the  translation 
of  the  Seventy.  Hence  it  has  happened,  that  his 
critical  acuteness  is  not  always  so  well  directed  as 
it  might  have  been.  The  significations  of  words 
and  idioms  are  often  determined  by  him  from 
classical  authority,  which  might,  with  greater  ease 
and  more  precision,  have  been  ascertained  by  the 
usage  of  the  sacred  writers,  and  their  ancient  in- 
terpreters. As  to  words  which  do  not  occur  in 
other  Greek  writers,  or  but  rarely,  or  in  a  sense 
manifestly  different  from  what  they  bear  in  Scrip- 
ture, Beza's  chief  aid  was  etymology.  This  has  oc- 
casioned his  frequent  recourse,  without  necessity, 
to  circumlocution,  to  the  prejudice  always  of  the 
diction,  and  sometimes  of  the  sense.     Examples 


212  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

of  this  we  have  in  his  manner  of  rendering  anXay- 
XVL^Ofiai  ^^,  ocXrfgovofisa  ^^,  nXrigotpogsa  ^°,  6vxocpaV' 
TSC3  '^\  x^igoTovea  '^,  and  several  others.  On  the 
last  of  these,  I  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  make 
some  remarks.  For  the  other  four,  I  shall  only 
refer  to  my  notes  on  those  passages  in  the  Gos- 
pels, where  they  occur  as  marked  in  the  margin. 
It  is,  no  doubt,  to  this  attempt  at  tracing  the  ori- 
gin of  the  words  in  his  version,  that  he  alludes  in 
that  expression,  Verborum  proprietatem  studiose 
mm  sectatus  ^^.  This,  however,  has  been  shown 
not  to  be  always  the  surest  method  of  attaining 
the. signification  wanted ^^ 

§  4.  But  of  all  the  faults  with  which  Beza  is 
chargeable  as  a  translator,  the  greatest  is,  un- 
doubtedl}^,  that  he  was  too  violent  a  party-man  to 
possess  that  impartiality,  without  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  succeed  as  an  interpreter  of  holy  writ 
It  requires  but  a  very  little  of  a  critical  eye  to 
discern  in  him  a  constant  effort  to  accommodate 
the  style  of  the  sacred  writers  to  that  of  his  s^ct. 
Nay,  what  he  has  done  in  this  way,  is  done  so 
openly,  I  might  have  said  avoAvedly,  that  it  is 
astonishing  it  has  not  more  discredited  his  work. 

In  this  particular,  as  in  the  application  of  the 
pronouns  above  mentioned,  Junius  and  Tremellius 

68  Matth.  ix.  3G.  ^^  Malth.  v.  5.  '^o  Luke,  i.  1 . 

71  Luke,  xix.  8.  '^-  Acts,  xiv.  23.  '^ 

^-i  Epist.  ad  Elis.  Reg.  Angel.  "^^  Diss.  IV.  §  15,  &c. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  213 

have  also  justly  fallen  under  the  animadversion  of 
all  impartial  judges.  What  is  thus  well  expressed 
in  the  English  translation,  They  gave  the  sense, 
and  caused  them  to  understand  the  readmg'^%  is 
rendered,  by  these  interpreters,  Exponendo  sen- 
sum  dabaiit  intelligent iam  per  scripturaivi  ipsam. 
The  three  last  words  are  an  evident  interpolation. 
There  is  no  ellipsis  in  the  sentence  :  they  are  no- 
way necessary  ;  for  the  sense  is  complete  without 
them.  But  with  them  it  is  most  unwarrantably 
limited  to  express  the  private  opinion  of  the  trans- 
lators. I  am  as  zealously  attached  as  any  man,  to 
the  doctrine  Jhat  Scripture  will  ever  be  found  its 
own  best  interpreter  ;  an  opinion  which  I  have 
considered  in  a  former  Dissertation^^,  and  which 
is  sufficiently  supported  by  the  principles  of 
sound  criticism,  and  common  sense.  But  no  per- 
son can  detest  more  strongly  a  method  of  defend- 
ing even  a  true  opinion,  so  unjustifiable  as  that 
of  foisting  it  into  the  sacred  Scriptures.  If  any 
thing  can  serve  to  render  a  just  sentiment  ques- 
tionable, it  is  the  detection  of  such  gross  unfair- 
ness, in  the  expedients  emploj^ed  for  promoting 
it.  Yet  this  has  been  copied  into  the  Geneva 
French  version,  after  it  had  received  the  correc- 
tions of  Bertram,  by  whom  it  has  been  made  to 
say,  Es  en  donnoient  V intelligence,  lafaisant  enten- 
dre par  Vecriture  meme.  It  is  but  just  to  observe, 
that  neither  Olivetan  the  translator,  nor  Calvin, 
who  afterwards  revised  his  work,  had  discovered 

"  Neh.  viii.  8.  76  pjss.  II.  Pari  II. 

VOL.    H.  27 


214  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

any  warrant  for  the  last  clause  in  the  original,  or 
had  admitted  it  into  the  version. 

The  insertion  of  this  comment  has  here  this 
additional  bad  consequence,  that  it  misleads  the 
reader  in  regard  to  the  exposition  meant  by  the 
sacred  penman.  Who  would  not  conclude,  from 
the  version  of  Junius,  that  Ezra,  or  some  of  the 
Levites  who  attended,  after  reading  a  portion  of 
Scripture,  pronounced  an  explanatory  discourse 
(such  as  in  some  Christian  societies  is  called  a 
lecture)  on  the  passage.  Whereas  the  whole  im- 
port appears  to  be  that,  as  the  people,  after  the 
captivity,  did  not  perfectly  understand  the  ancient 
Hebrew,  in  which  the  law  was  written,  this  judi- 
cious teacher  found  it  expedient,  by  himself  or 
others,  to  interpret  what  was  read,  one  paragraph 
after  another,  into  that  dialect  of  Chaldee  which 
was  current  among  them ;  a  practice  long  after 
continued  in.  the  synagogue,  and  not  improbably, 
as  learned  men  have  thought,  that  which  gave 
rise  to  the  targums  or  paraphrases,  in  that  tongue, 
extant  to  this  day. 

I  do  not  remember  a  passage  wherein  Beza  has 
gone  quite  so  far,  as  Junius  and  Tremellius  have 
presumed  to  do  in  this  instance  ;  but  that  he 
has  shown  throughout  the  whole  work,  a  manifest 
partiality  to  the  theology  then  prevalent  in  Ge- 
neva, is  beyond  a  doubt.  I  shall  select  a  few 
examples  out  of  a  much  greater  number,  which 
might  be  brought. 

§  5.  The  first  shall  be  from  that  celebrated  dis- 
course of  our  Lord's,  commonly  called  his  sermon 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  216 

on  the  mount,  wherein  these  words,  r^xovaaTS  'oit 
sggs&rf  rots  ag^aiois''^,  are  always  rendered,  Audis- 
tis  dictum  fuisse  a  veteribus  ;  in  contradiction  to 
all  the  versions  which  had  preceded.  Oriental  and 
Occidental,  and  in  opposition  1to  the  uniform  idiom 
of  the  sacred  writers.  [See  the  note  on  that 
passage  in  this  version.]  Beza  does  not  hesitat^e 
in  his  annotations  to  assign  his  reason,  which  iS 
drawn  not  from  any  principle  of  criticism,  not 
from  a  different  reading  in  any  ancient  manu- 
scripts, of  which  he  had  several,  but  professedly 
from  the  fitness  of  this  version  for  supporting  his 
ov/n  doctrine.  "  Prsestat  Toig  agx^^ioig  explicare 
"  quasi  scriptum  sit  ^vtto  tcov  ag/aiav  (lit  sic  noten- 
"  tur  synagogue  doctores,  jampridem  sic  docentes, 
"  qui  sole  bant  patrum  et  majorum  nomina  suis 
"  falsis  interpretationibus  prsetexere)  quam  ad 
"  auditores  referre."  But  this  correction  of  the 
ancient  version  was  ever}'  way  unsuitable,  and  the 
expedient  weak.  It  was  essential  to  the  Phari- 
saical notion  of  traditions,  to  consider  them  as 
precepts  which  God  himself  had  given  to  their 
fathers  verbally,  and  which  were  therefore  called 
the  oral  law,  in  contradistinction  to  the  ivritten 
law,  or  the  Scriptures.  Consequently  Beza's 
representation  of  their  presumption  is  far  short  of 
the  truth.  He  ought  to  have  said.  Qui  solebant 
(not  patrum  et  majorum  nomina,  but)  Dei  nomen 
(for  the  fact  is  indubitable)  suis  falsis  interpreta- 
tionibus prcstexere.  And  let  it  be  observed,  that 
our  Lord  does  not  here  give  any  sanction  to  their 

^7  Matth.  V.  21.  27.  33. 


216  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

distinction  of  the  law,  into  oral.,  and  written.  He 
does  not  once  say,  It  was  said  to  the  ancients.,  but 
uniformly.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said.  He 
speaks  not  of  what  God  did,  but  of  what  they 
pretended  that  he  did. 

His  words,  therefore,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees,  are  alike  misrepresented  by  this  bold 
interpreter  ;  and  that  for  the  sake  of  an  advan- 
tage, merely  imaginary,  against  an  adverse  sect. 
The  one  interpretation  is  not  more  favourable  to 
the  Socinians  than  the  other.  But,  if  it  had  been 
otherwise,  no  person  will  consider  that  as  a  good 
reason  for  misrepresenting,  unless  he  is  more 
solicitous  of  accommodating  Scripture  to  his  senti- 
ments, than  of  accommodating  his  sentiments  to 
Scripture.  The  former  has  indeed  been  but  too 
common  with  interpreters,  though  with  few  so 
much,  and  so  barefacedly,  as  with  Beza.  I  am 
sorry  to  add  that,  in  the  instance  we  have  been 
considering,  Beza  has  been  followed  by  most  of 
the  Protestant  translators  of  his  day,  Italian, 
French,  and  English. 

§  6.  The  following  is  another  example  of  the 
strong  inclination  which  this  translator  had,  even 
in  the  smallest  matters,  to  make  his  version  con- 
formable to  his  own  prepossessions.  He  renders 
these  words,  aw  yvvai^t"'^,  though,  without  either 
article  or  pronoun,  cmn  iixoribiis,  as  though  the 
expression  had  been  avv  rais  yvvai^iv  avTcov.  In 
this    manner   he   excuses  himself  in   the   notes  : 

■^^  Acts.  i.  14. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  217 

"  Conveniebat  apostolorum  etiam  uxores  confir- 
"  mari,  qiias  vel  peregrinationis  illorum  comites 
"  esse  opportebat,  vel  eorum  absentiam  domi  pa- 
"  tienter  expectare."  Very  well  :  and  because 
Theodore  Beza  judges  it  to  have  been  convenient 
that  the  Apostles'  wives,  for  their  own  confirma- 
tion, should  be  there,  he  takes  the  liberty  to  make 
the  sacred  historian  say  that  they  were  there, 
when,  in  fact,  he  does  not  so  much  as  insinuate 
that  there  were  any  wives  among  them.  The  use 
of  the  Greek  word  ywjf  is  entirely  similar  to  that 
of  the  French  word  femme.  Nobody  that  under- 
stands French  would  translate  avec  les  femmes 
with  the  ivives,  but  with  the  women,  whereas  the 
proper  translation  of  avec  leicrs  femmes  is,  tvith 
their  ivives. 

It  is  impossible  for  one  who  knows  the  state  of 
things,  at  the  time  when  that  version  was  made, 
not  to  perceive  the  design  of  this  misinterpreta- 
tion. The  Protestant  ministers,  amongst  whom 
marriage  was  common,  were  exposed  to  much 
obloquy  among  the  Romanists,  through  the  absurd 
prejudices  of  the  latter,  in  favour  of  celibacy.  It 
was,  therefore,  deemed  of  great  consequence  to 
the  party,  to  represent  the  Apostles  as  married 
men.  But,  could  one  imagine  that  this  considera- 
tion would  have  weight  enough  to  lead  a  man  of 
Beza's  abilities  and  character  into  such  a  flagrant, 
though  not  very  material  mistranslation  ?  A  trans- 
lator ought  surely  to  express  the  full  meaning  of 
his  author,  as  far  as  the  language  which  he  writes 
is  capable  of  expressing  it     But  here  there  is  an 


218  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

evident  restriction  of  his  author's  meaning.  The 
remark  of  the  canon  of  Ely  is  unanswerable  : 
"  Qui  mulieres  dicit,  uxores  etiam  sub  eadem  ap- 
"  pellatione  comprehendere  potest.  At  qui  uxo- 
"  res  nominat,  solas  illas  nominat — Igitur  quo 
"  generalior  eo  tutior  erit,  et  Grsecis  convenientior 
"  interpretatio."  Besides,  there  may  have  been, 
for  aught  we  know,  no  wives  in  the  company,  in 
which  case  Beza's  words  include  a  direct  false- 
hood. And  this  falsehood  he  boldly  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  the  sacred  penman.  We  know  that  Pe- 
ter had  once  a  wife,  as  we  learn  from  the  Gospel, 
that  his  wife's  mother  was  cured  by  Jesus  of  a 
fever ^^  But  whether  she  was  living  at  the  time 
referred  to  in  the  Acts,  or  whether  any  more  of 
the  Apostles  were  married,  or  whether  their 
wives  were  disciples,  we  know  not.  Now  this 
falsification,  though  in  a  little  matter,  is  strongly 
characteristical  of  that  interpreter.  I  am  glad  to 
add,  that  in  this  he  has  been  deserted  by  all  the- 
Protestant  translators  I  know. 

A  similar  instance  the  very  next  chapter  pre- 
sents us  with^'^.  The  words,  ovx  eyxaxaXsLxpai?  tijv 
-ipv^Tfv  fiov  sLs  'adov,  he  translates,  JYon  derelinques 
cadaver  meum  in  sepulcro,  not  only  rendering'a^T^s 
septdcriim,  according  to  an  opinion  which,  though 
shown  above ^*,  to  be  ill-founded,  is  pretty  com- 
mon ;  but  ipvpj  cadaver,  carcase,  wherein,  I  believe, 
he  is  singular.     His  motive  is   still  of  the  same 

"  Matth.  viii.  14,  15.  *  «''  Acts,  ii.  27. 

8'  Diss.  VI.  Part  II.  0  4,  &c. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  219 

kind.  The  common  version,  though  miexception- 
able,  might  be  thought  to  support  the  Popish  lim- 
bo. "  Quod  autem  annotavi  ex  vetere  versione 
"  animam  meam  natum  esse  errorem,  ac  propterea 
"  me  maluisse  aliud  nomen  usurpare,  non  temere 
"  feci,  cum  hunc  prsecipue  locum  a  Papistis  tor- 
"  queri  ad  suum  limbum  constituendum  videamus, 
"  et  veteres  etiam  inde  descensum  ilium  anima; 
"  Christi  ad  inferos  excogitarint  ^^." 

This  specimen  from  Beza,  it  ma}-  be  thought, 
should  have  been  overlooked,  because,  though  in- 
serted in  the  first,  it  was  corrected  in  the  subse- 
quent, editiops  of  his  version.  This,  I  confess, 
was  my  own  opinion,  till  I  observed,  that  in  the 
annotations  of  those  very  editions,  he  vindicates 
his  first  translation  of  the  words,  and  acknowl- 
edges that  he  had  altered  it,  not  from  the  convic- 
tion of  an  error,  but  to  gratify  those  who,  without 
reason,  were,  through  ignorance  of  the  Latin 
idiom,  dissatisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  he 
had  first  rendered  it.  "  In  priore  nostra  editione," 
says  he  ^^,  "  recte  interpretatus  eram,  non  derelin- 
"  QUES  CADAVER,  &c.  quod  tamcu  nunc  mutavi,  ut 
"  iis  obsequar,  qui  conquest!  sunt  me  a  Grsecis 
"  verbis  discessisse,  et  nomine  cadaveris  (inscitia 
"  certe  potius  Latini  sermonis  quam  recto  ullo  ju- 
"  dicio)  offenduntur." 

To  Beza's  reason  for  rejecting  the  common  ver- 
sion, Castalio  retorts,  very  justly,  that  if  the  possi- 
bility of  wresting  a  passage  in   support  of  error, 

6^  Bozac  Resp.  ad  Cast.  ^3  Bezae  Annotationes,  ed.  1598. 


220  3PREL1MINARY  [d.  x. 

were  held  a  good  reason  for  translating  it  other- 
wise, Beza's  own  version  of  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion, would  be  more  exceptionable  than  what  he 
had  pretended  to  correct.  "  Deinde  non  minus  ex 
"  ejus  translatione  possit  error  nasci,  et  quidem 
"  longe  perniciosior.  Cum  enim  animam  Christi 
"  vertat  in  cadaver,  periculum  est  ne  quis  animam 
"  Christi  putet  nihil  fuisse  nisi  cadaver  ^^"  And 
even  this  opinion,  which  denies  that  Jesus  Christ 
had  a  human  soul,  has  not  been  unexampled.  It 
v/as  maintained  b}^  Beryllus,  bishop  of  Bostra  in 
Arabia,  in  the  third  century.  But,  on  this  strange 
principle  of  Beza's,  where  is  the  version  of  any 
part  of  Scripture  in  vvhich  we  could  safely  ac- 
quiesce ? 

§  7.  A  THIRD  example  of  the  same  undue  bias 
(for  I  reckon  not  the  last,  because  corrected,  what- 
ever was  the  motive)  we  have  in  his  version  of 
these  words,  XeigoTovytjavTss  8e  avTots  ng^o^viz-^ 
govs^^,  which  he  renders  Quumque  ipsi  per  stif- 
fragia  creasscnt  presbyteros.  The  ^xord  ^sigojovi^- 
aavjes,  he  translates  from  etymology,  a  manner 
which,  as  was  observed  before,  he  sometimes 
uses.  XagoTovHv  literally  signifies,  to  stretch  out 
the  hand.  From  the  use  of  this  manner,  in  popu- 
lar elections,  it  came  to  denote  to  elect,  and 
thence,  again,  to  nominate,  or  appoint  any  how. 
Now  Beza,  that  his  intention  might  not  escape  us, 
tells  us  in  the  note,  "Est  notanda  vis  hujus-verbi, 
''  ut  Paulum  ac  Barnabam  sciamus  nil  privato  arbi- 


s^  Cast.  Defcn.  adversarii  Errores.  ^^  Acts,  xiv.  23. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  221 

"  trio  gessisse,  nee  ullam  in  ecclesia  exercuisse 
"  tyrannidem  :  nil  denique  tale  fecisse  quale  hodie 
"  Romanus  papa  et  ipsius  asseclse,  quos  ordinaries 
"  vocant."  Now,  though  no  man  is  more  an  ene- 
my to  ecclesiastic  t}  ranny  than  I  am,  I  would  not 
employ  against  it  weapons  borrowed  from  false- 
hood and  sophistry.  I  cannot  help,  therefore,  de- 
claring, that  the  version  which  the  Vulgate  has 
given  of  that  passage,  Et  qimm  constiluissent  illis 
presbytey^os,  fully  expresses  the  sense  of  the 
Greek,  and,  consequently,  that  the  words  per  suf- 
fragia,  are  a  mere  interpolation,  for  the  sake  of 
answering  a  particular  purpose.  It  was  observed 
before  ®^,  that  use,  where  it  can  be  discovered, 
must  determine  the  signification,  in  preference  to 
etymolog}'.  And  here  we  are  at  no  loss  to  affirm 
that  xEigoTovsco,  whatever  were  its  origin,  is  not 
confined  to  electing,  or  constituting,  bj^  a  plurality 
of  voices. 

But,  whatever  be  in  this,  in  the  instance  before 
us,  the  x^igoTovriaavxas^  or  electors,  were  no  more 
than  Paul  and  Barnabas ;  and  it  could  not,  witJi 
any  propriety,  be  said  of  two,  that  they  elected 
by  a  majority  of  votes ;  since  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the}^  must  have  both  agreed  in  the  ap- 
pointment :  and  if  it  had  been  the  disciples,  and  not 
the  two  Apostles  who  had  given  their  suflrages,  it 
would  have  been  of  the  disciples,  and  of  them 
only,  not  of  the  Apostles,  that  the  term  ^stgozovrf- 
aavjis  could  have  been  used,  which  the  construc- 

VOL.  n.  28 


222       ^  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

tion  of  the  sentence  manifestly  shows  that  it  is 
not.  The  sense  of  the  word  here  given  by  Beza, 
is  therefore  totally  unexampled  ;  for,  according  to 
him,  it  must  signify  not  to  electa  but  to  constitute 
those  whom  others  have  elected.  For,  if  this  be 
not  what  he  means  by  per  suffragia  creassent,  ap- 
plied to  no  more  than  two,  it  will  not  be  easy  to 
divine  his  meaning,  or  to  discover  in  what  manner 
it  answered  the  purpose  expressed  in  his  note. 
And  if  this  be  what  he  means,  he  has  given  a 
sense  to  the  word,  for  which  I  have  not  seen  an 
authority  from  any  author,  sacred  or  profane. 
The  common  import  of  the  word  is  no  more  than 
to  constitute,  ordain,  or  appoint  any  how,  by 
election,  or  otherwise,  by  one,  two,  or  more. 
When  it  is  by  election,  it  is  solely  from  the  scope 
of  the  passage  that  we  must  collect  it.  In  the 
only  other  place  ^''  where  it  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament,  it  no  doubt  relates  to  a  proper  elec- 
tion. But  it  is  from  the  words  immediately  con- 
nected, xeigoTovTfd'SLs  "vTto  Tov  sxych^aiav,  we  learn, 
that  this  is  the  sense  there,  as  it  is  from  the  words 
immediately  connected  that  we  learn, 'with  equal 
certainty,  that  it  relates  here  to  an  appointment 
made  by  two  persons  only. 

The  word  occurs  once  in  composition  with  the 
preposition  ngo.  AXXa  i^iagTvoc  tols  ngoytiyjigo- 
Tovriy.evois  "vno  tov  0£ov^^,  rendered  by  Beza  him- 
self, sed  testibus  quos  ipse  prius  designaverat. 
Here  there  can  be  no  question  that  it  refers  to  a 
destination,  of  which  God  alone  is  the  author,  and 

87  2  Cor.  viii.  19.  88  Acts,  x.  41.    . 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  223 

in  which,  therefore,  there  could  be  no  suffrages. 
For  even  Beza  will  not  be  hard}'^  enough  to  pre- 
tend, that  such  is  the  force  of  this  verb,  as  to 
show,  that  God  did  nothing  but  by  common  con- 
sent, and  only  destined  those  whom  others  had 
elected.  That  the  word  /sigorovsa  was  commonly 
used  in  all  the  latitude  here  assigned  to  it,  Dr. 
Hammond  has,  from  Philo,  Josephus,  and  Pagan 
writers  of  undoubted  authority,  given  the  amplest 
evidence  in  his  Commentary. 

But,  so  great  was  the  authority  of  Beza  with 
the  Protestant  translators,  who  favoured  the  model 
of  Geneva,  that  his  exposition  of  this  passage, 
however  singular,  was  generally  adopted.  Diodati 
says,  still  more  explicitly,  E  dopo  cK'  ebbero  loro 
ordinati  per  voti  communi,  degli  antiani.  The 
French,  Et  apres  que  par  l'avis  des  assemblees,  Us 
eurent  etabli  des  anciens.  The  English  Geneva 
Bible,  And  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders 
BY  ELECTION.  The  words  in  these  versions,  distin- 
guished by  the  character,  are  those  which,  after 
Beza's  example,  are  interpolated.  In  the  English 
translation,  these  words  are  discarded.  Our  trans- 
lators did  not  concur  in  sentiments  with  the  Gene- 
vese,  at  least,  in  this  article. 

§  8.  Again,  that  he  might  avoid  every  expres- 
sion which  appeared  to  favour  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal redemption,  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  con- 
cerning God,'^0?  TtavTag  av&gcoTtovs  d-sXst  (Sad^T^vocL^^, 
literally  rendered  in  the  Vulgate,  Qui  omnes  ho- 

89  1  Tim.  ii.  4. 


224  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

mines  vtilt  salvos  fieri,  lie  translates,  Qui  quosvis 
homines  vult  servari  ^^\  A  little  after,  in  the  same 
chapter ^V^  ^^^^  'fctvTov  avTtXvjgov'vTtsg  navTov, 
in  the  Vulgate  Qui  declit  redemptionem  semetip- 
siim  pro  omnibus.  Beza  makes  Qui  sese  ipse  dedit 
redemptionis  pretium  pro  quibusvis.  Once  more, 
in  another  place  of  this  Epistle, 'Og£(;Tt(;caT?^p  nav- 
rav  av&gco7Tcov,  f^iaXiora  niorav  ^^,  in  the  Vulgate, 
Qui  est  salvator  omnium  hominum,  maxime  fide- 
Hum ;  Beza  renders,  Qui  est  conservator  omnium 
hominum,  maxime  vero  fidelium.  Let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  this  is  the  only  place,  in  his  version, 
where  aaiyg  is  rendered  conservator,  preserver  :  in 
every  other  passage  but  one,  where  he  uses  a 
periphrasis,  the  word  is  servator,  answering  to 
salvator,  in  the  Vulgate,  saviour.  If  it  had  not 
been  for  the  annexed  clause,  ^laliOTa  itLaxav,  Beza, 

90  In  the  same  manner  he  renders  these  words  [Tit.  ii.  11.] 
Ejistpavrj  yag  rj  ^agis  tov  Geov  tj  6ix)Ti]giog  7ia6iv  avOgtoTroig, 
"  llluxit  enim  gratia  ilia  Dei  salutifera  quibusvis  [not  omnibus^ 
"  hominibus."  No  modern  translation  that  I  am  acquainted 
with  follows  Beza  in  his  interpretation  of  this  verse.  The  Ge- 
neva French  says,  Car  la  grace  de  Dieu  salutaife  a  tons  hom- 
ines, est  clairement  apparue.  The  Geneva  English,  For  that 
grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  unto  all  men,  hath  appeared. 
The  translators  of  the  version  in  common  use,  have  considered 
7iu6iv  avOgix)7i0i?  as  governed  hj  anacpaTr],  and  not  by  6toT7]giog, 
rendering  it,  For  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath 
appeared  to  all  men.  Of  this  version  the  original  is  evidently 
capable.  Diodati  has  done  still  better  in  retaining  the  ambi- 
guity. Percioche  e  apparita  la  gratia  di  Dio  salutare  U  tutti  gli 
huomini. 

91  1  Tim.  ii.  6.  92  j  tj^^j  j^   jq 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  225 

I  suppose,  would  have  retained  the  word  servator, 
and  had  recourse  to  the  expedient  he  had  used 
repeatedly  for  eluding  the  difficulty,  by  saying, 
Servator  quorumvis  hotninum.  But  he  perceived, 
that  TtavTov  avd^gajtcav  must  be  here  taken  in  the 
most  comprehensive  sense,  being  contradistin- 
guished to  ntaxav.  I  do  not  mean,  by  these 
remarks,  to  affirm,  whether  or  not  the  word  con- 
servator be  equivalent  to  the  import  of  the  orig- 
inal term,  as  used  in  this  place.  It  is  enough  for 
my  purpose  that,  as  this  difference  of  meaning 
does  not  necessarily  result,  either  from  the  words 
in  immediate  connection,  or  from  the  purport  of 
the  Epistle,'  no  person  is  entitled  to  alter  th6 
expression,  in  order  to  accommodate  it  to  his 
own   opinions. 

An  exact  counterpart  to  this  is  the  manner  in 
which  an  anonymous  English  translator  has  ren- 
dered these  words  of  our  Lord,  To  tcsql  noXlav 
exxvvofisvov  sis  atpsoiv  '^auagriav^^,  which  is  shed 
for  mankind,  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  defending 
himself  in  a  note,  by  observing,  that  "  ttoXXol  is 
"  frequently  used  for  all."  Admit  it  were.  The 
common  acceptation  of  the  word  is  doubtless 
many,  and  not  all.  And  if  no  good  reason  for 
departing  from  the  common  meaning  can  be 
alleged,  either  from  the  words  in  construction,  or 
from  the  scope  of  the  passage,  it  ought  to  re- 
main unchanged :  otherwise,  all  dependence  on 
translations,  except  for  the  theological  system  of 
the  translator,   is   destroyed.     Of  the  conduct  of 

93  Matth.  xxvi.  28. 


226  PRELIMINARY  -  _[d.  x. 

both  translators,  in  these  instances,  though  acting 
in  support  of  opposite  opinions,  the  error  is  the 
same.  And  the  plea  which  vindicates  this  writer, 
will  equally  vindicate  Beza,  and  the  plea  which 
vindicates  Beza,  will  equally  vindicate  this  wri- 
ter. The  analogy  of  the  faith,  that  is,  the  con- 
formity to  his  particular  system,  is  the  genuine 
plea  of  each. 

The  safest  and  the  fairest  way  for  a  translator 
is,  in  every  disputable  point,  to  make  no  distinc- 
tion where  the  divine  Spirit  has  not  distinguished. 
To  apply  to  this  the  words  used  by  Bojs,  in  a 
similar  case,  "  Cur  enim  cautiores  simus,  magisque 
"  religiosi  quam  Spiritus  Sanctus  ?  Si  Spiritus  Sanc- 
"  tus  non  dubitavit  dicere  navxas  et  gcoti^q,  cur  nos 
"  vereamur  dicere  omnes  et  servator  .^"  In  the 
same  manner  would  I  expostulate  with  certain  di- 
vines amongst  ourselves,  who,  I  have  observed,  in 
quoting  the  preceding  passages  of  Scripture, 
never  say,  ivould  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and, 
the  Saviour  of  all  men,  but  invariably,  all  sorts  of 
men  ;  charitably  intending,  by  this  prudent  cor- 
rection, to  secure  the  unwary  from  being  seduced, 
by  the  latitudinarian  expressions  of  the  Apostle. 
If  this  be  not  being  wise  above  what  is  'tvritten,  I 
know  not  what  is.  In  the  first  and  second  pas- 
sages quoted,  I  know  no  translator  who  has  chosen 
to  imitate  Beza  ;  in  the  third,  he  is  followed  by 
the  Geneva  French  only,  who  says  Le  conser- 
vateur  de  tons  hommes.  But  it  is  proper  to  add, 
that  it  was  not  so  in  that  version,  till  it  had  under- 
gone a  second  or  third  revisal  :  for  the  corrections 
have  not  been  all  for  the  better. 


r.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  227 

§  9.  Further,  the  words  x^9^^'^V9  "^V^  'vTrodTa- 
tffos    aviov^^,    rendered   in   the   Vulgate,  Jigura 
substantiiB  ejtcs,  he  has  translated,  character  per- 
soncB   illius.      My    only    objection  here  is,  to  his 
rendering     vnoaxaai?   persona.      However   much 
this  may  suit    the    scholastic  style,  which  began 
to  be  introduced  into  theology  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, it  by  no  means  stiits  the  idiom  of  a  period 
so  early  as  that  in  which  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament   were   written.      It   is   of  real   conse- 
quence to  scriptural  criticism,  not  to  confound  the 
language  of  the  sacred  penmen  with  that  of  the 
writers  of  tl^e  fourth,  or  any  subsequent,  century. 
The  change  in  style  was  gradual,  but,  in  process 
of  time,  became  very   considerable.      There  was 
scarcely  a  new  controversy  started,  which  did  not 
prove  the  source  of  new  terms  and  phrases,  as 
well   as   of  new  or  unusual   applications   of  the 
old.     The   word  'vTtooTaais  occurs  four  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  but  in  no  other  place  is  it 
rendered  person.     It  occurs  often  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  but  it  is  never  the  version  of  a  Hebrew  word 
which  can   be   rendered  person.     Jerom,  though 
he  lived  when  the    Sabellian    and   Arian  contro- 
versies were  fresh  in  the  minds  of  men,  did  not 
discover  any    reason    to    induce    him    to  change 
the  word  substantia,  which    he  found  in  the  for- 
mer  version,  called  the  Italic.      I  take  notice  of 
this,    principally    (for    I    acknowledge    that    the 
expression  is   obscure,   either  way  rendered)  on 

9*  Heb.  i.  3.  -^ 


^28  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

account  of  the  manner  wherein  Beza  defends  his 
version.  "  Quoniinus  substcmtiam  interpretarer, 
"  eo  sum  adductus,  quod  videam  plerosque  ^vjto- 
"  cxaoLv  hoc  loco  pro  ovaia  esse  interpretatos,  pe- 
"  rinde  ac  si  inter  essentiam  et  substantiam  nihil 
"  interesset — Deinde  hoc  etiam  commodi  habet 
"  ista  interpretatio  quod  hypostases  adversus  Sa- 
"  bellium  aperte  distinguit,  et  to  'oi.ioov(jiov  con- 
"  firmat  adversus  Arianos."  Here  we  have  a  man 
who,  in  effect,  acknowledges  that  he  would  not 
have  translated  some  things  in  the  way  he  has 
done,  if  it  were  not  that  he  could  thereby  strike  a 
severer  blow  against  some  adverse  sect,  or  ward 
off  a  blow,  which  an  adversary  might  aim  against 
him.  Of  these  great  objects  he  never  loses  sight. 
Accordingly,  the  controvertist  predominates 
throughout  his  whole  version,  as  w^ell  as  commen- 
tary ;  the  translator  is,  in  him,  but  a  subordinate 
character;  insomuch  that  he  may  justly  be  called 
what  Jerom  calls  Aquila,  contensiosus  interpres. 

I  own,  indeed,  that  my  ideas  on  this  subject  are 
so  much  the  reverse  of  Beza's,  that  I  think  a 
translator  is  bound  to  abstract  from,  and  as.  far  as 
possible,  forget,  all  sects  and  systems,  together 
with  all  the  polemic  jargon  which  they  have"  been 
the  occasion  of  introducing.  His  aim  ought  to  be 
invariably  to  give  the  untainted  sentiments  of  the 
author,  and  to  express  himself  in  such  a  manner 
as  men  would  do,  or  (which  is  the  same  thing)  as 
those  men  actually  did,  amongst  whom  sudi  dis- 
putes  had    never    been    agitated.       In   this   last 


p.  v.]  DTSSERTATIONS.  220 

example,  Beza   is   followed  by   the   French  and 
the  English  translators,  but  not  by  the  Italian. 

§  10.  Again,  in  the  same  Epistle  it  is  said, 'O 
ds  dixaios  sx  Ttiazsas  ^f^asTar  Tcai  sav  '^vTZoazsih^Tai, 
ovx  £vdox£t  'if  ip^X^]  l^ov  ev  avxa  ^\  In  the  Vul- 
gate, rightly,  Justus  autem  mens  ex  fide  vivet  : 
quod  si  subtraxerit  se,  non  placebit  animcB  mecc. 
In  Beza's  version,  Justus  autem  ex  fide  vivet ;  at 
si  quis  se  subduxerit,  non  est  gratum  animo  meo. 
Here  we  have  two  errors.  First,  the  word  quis 
is,  to  the  manifest  injury  of  the  meaning,  foisted 
into  the  texjt.  Yet  there  can  be  no  pretence  of 
necessity,  as  there  is  no  ellipsis  in  the  sentence. 
By  the  Syntactic  order  "o  8ixaios  is  understood  as 
the  nominative  to  'vTtodTsih^TaL ;  the  power  of  the 
personal  pronoun  being,  in  Greek  and  Latin,  suf- 
ficiently expressed  by  the  inflexion  of  the  verb. 
Secondl}^  the  consequent  displeasure  of  God  is 
transferred  from  the  person  to  the  action  ;  non  est 
gratum  ;  as  though  ev  avxa  could  be  explained 
otherwise  than  as  referring  to  Sixaios.  This  per- 
version of  the  sense  is,  in  my  judgment,  so  gross, 
as  fully  to  vindicate  from  undue  severit}",  the 
censure  pronounced  by  bishop  Pearson ^*^.  Ilia 
verba  a  Theodoro  Beza  hand  bona  fide  sunt  trans- 
lata.  But  this  is  one  of  the  many  passages  in 
which  this  interpreter  has  judged  that  the  sacred 
penmen,  having  expressed  themselves  incautiously, 

95  Heb.  X.  38;  '»  See  his  Praefatio  Paraenetica,  prefix- 

ed to  Grabe's  Septuagint.  . 

VOL.    IL  29 


230  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x, 

and  given  a  handle  to  the  patrons  of  erroneous 
tenets,  stood  in  need  of  him  more  as  a  corrector 
than  as  a  translator.  In  this  manner  Beza  sup- 
ports the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the 
saints,  having  been  followed,  in  the  first  of  these 
errors,  by  the  French  and  English  translators,  but 
not  in  the  second ;  and  not  by  the  Italian  transla- 
tor in  either,  though  as  much  a  Calvinist  as  any  of 
them.  In  the  old  English  Bibles,  the  expression 
was,  If  he  imihdraw  himself. 

§   11.  In  order  to  evade,  as  much  as  possible, 
the  appearance   of  regard,  in  the   dispensation  of 
grace,  to  the  disposition  of  the  receiver,  the  words 
of  the  Apostle,   Tov  ngoTsgov  ovtcl  ^Xaacprfy^ov  xat 
8iaxT7^v,   xai  "v^gLCTrjv   aXX  i^kstf&rfv,    'oti  ayvoav 
STtoiTfda  sv  a7iiciiia^\  he  renders    Qui  prius  eram 
blasphemus  et  persecutor,  et  ivjuriis  alios  afficiens : 
sed  misericordia  sum  donatus.       JYam   ignorans 
id  faciebam  :  nempe  fidei  expers.     Here  I  observe,- 
first,  that  he  divides  the   sentence  into  two,  mak- 
ing a  full   stop  at   r^lsr^d-Tjv,   and  thus   disjoins  a 
clause   which,  in  Greek,  is  intimately  connected, 
and  had  always  been  so  understood,  as  appears 
from  all  the  ancient  versions  and  commentaries  : 
and,    secondly,    that  he  introduces   this    sentence 
with   nam,  as  if,  in  Greek,  it  had  been  ^ag,  in- 
stead of  quia,  the  proper  version  of  'on.      Both 
are   causal   conjunctions  ;    but  as   the    former   is 
generally  employed  in  uniting  different  sentences, 
and  the  latter  in  uniting  the  different  members  of 

57  iTim.  i.  13. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  231 

the  same  sentence,  the  union  occasioned  by  the 
former  is  looser  and  more  indefinite  than  that  pro- 
duced by  the  latter.  The  one  expresses  a  con- 
nection with  the  general  scope  of  what  was  said, 
the  other  with  the  particular  clause  immediately 
preceding.  This  second  sentence,  as  Beza  exhib- 
its it,  may  be  explained  as  an  extenuation  sug- 
gested by  the  Apostle,  after  confessing  so  black  a 
crime.  As  if  he  had  said :  "  For  I  would  not  have 
"  acted  thus,  but  I  knew  not  what  I  was  doing,  as 
"  I  was  then  an  unbeliever."  It  is  evident  that 
the  words  of  the  original  are  not  susceptible  of 
this  interpretation.  Beza  has  not  been  followed  in 
this,  either  by  Diodati,  or  by  tha  Ei  glish  transla- 
tors. The  Geneva  French,  and  the  Geneva  Eng- 
lish, have  both  imitated  his  manner. 

§  12.  I  SHALL  produce  but  one  other  instance. 
The  words  of  the  beloved  disciple,  /7as  'o  ysyewri- 
fjLSvos  8>c  Tov  0SOV,  '^a^agziuv  ov  tiolh  ^® ;  rendered 
in  the  Vulgate,  Omnis  qui  natus  est  ex  Deo,  pecca- 
tum  non  facit,  Beza  translates,  Quisquis  natus  est 
ex  Deo,  peccato  non  dat  operam ;  by  this  last 
phrase,  endeavouring  to  elude  the  support  which 
the  original  appears  to  give  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
sinless  perfection  of  the  saints  in  the  present  life. 
That  this  was  his  view,  is  evident  from  what  he 
had  urged  in  defence  of  the  phrase,  in  his  annota- 
tions on  the  fourth  verse,  to  which  he  has  subjoin- 
ed these  words  :  "  Itaque  non  homines  sed  mon- 
*'  stra  hominum  (such  was  his  polemic  style)  sunt 

98  1  John,  Hi.  9. 


232  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

"  Pelagian! ,  Cathari,  Coelestiani,  Donatistse,  Ana- 
"  baptistae,  Libertini,  qui  ex  hoc  loco  perfectionem 
"  illani  somniant,  a  qua  absunt  ipsi  omnium  homi- 
"  num  longissime."  His  only  argument,  worthy 
of  notice,  is  the  seeming  inconsistency  of  this 
verse,  with  what  the  Apostle  had  advanced  a  little 
before,  Eav  iinofisv  'otl  'afiagjiav  ovx  €/ofji£Vf 
'iavxova  nXavafxsv  ^^,  If  loe  say  that  we  have  no 
sifi,  we  deceive  ourselves.  But  he  has  not  consid- 
ered that,  if  one  of  those  human  monsters  (as  he 
meekly  calls  them)  should  render  this  verse,  If  we 
say  that  we  have  never  sinned  (which  is  not  a 
greater  stretch  than  he  has  made  in  rendering  the 
other,)  the  reconciliation  of  the  two  passages  is 
equally  well  effected  as  by  his  method.  But  as, 
in  fact,  neither  of  these  expedients  can  be  vindi- 
cated, the  only  fair  way  is,  to  exhibit  both  verses 
in  as  general  terms  as  the  inspired  penman  has 
left  them  in ;  and  thus  to  put,  as  nearly  as  possi- 
ble, the  readers  of  the  translation  on  the  sapie 
footing  on  which  the  sacred  writers  have  put  the 
readers  of  the  original. 

There  is  still  another  reason  which,  seems  to 
have  influenced  Beza  in  rendering  'afiagriav  tioisc 
peccato  dat  operant^  which  is  kindly  to  favour  sin- 
ners, not  exorbitantly  profligate,  so  far  as  to  dispel 
all  fear  about  their  admission  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  This  construction  may  be  thought  un- 
charitable. I  own  I  should  have  thought  so  myself, 
if  he  had  not  explicitly  shown  his  principles,  on 

99  1  John,  i.  8. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  233 

this  subject,  in  other  places.  That  expression,  in 
the  sermon  on  the  mount,  Anoxogsixs  an  s^iov  'ot 
sgya^o^svoL  ti/v  avo^iav  '°^\  he  renders,  Mscedite  a 
me  qui  operant  datis  iniquitati.  And  though  he  is 
singular  in  using  this  phrase*,  I  should  not,  even 
from  it,  have  concluded  so  harshly  of  his  motive,  if 
his  explanation  in  the  note  had  not  put  it  beyond 
doubt.  "Ol  sgya'CoiiBvoL  rr^v  avo^iav,  "  id  est,  omni- 
"  BUS  sceleribus  et  flagitiis  addicti  homines — qui 
"  velut  artem  peccandi  exercent,  sicut  Latini  medi- 
"  cinam,  argentariam  facere  dicunt."  Thus,  if  he 
wound  the  sense  in  the  version,  he  kills  it  outright 
in  the  commentary.  In  another  edition,  wherein 
he  renders  the  text  simply  facitis  iniquitatem,  he 
says,  still  more  expressl}^,  "  Dicuntur  er^o  facere 
"  iniqiiitatem,  et  a  Christo  rejiciuntur  hoc  in  loco, 
"  non  qui  uno  et  altero  scelere  sunt  contaminati, 
"  sed  qui  banc  velut  artem  faciunt,  ut  sceleste 
"  agendo  vitam  tolerent,  et  Dei  nomine  abutantur 
"  ad  qusestum,  quo  cupiditatibus  suis  satisfaciant." 
Castalio,  after  quoting  these  words,  says  ^°\  very 
justly,  and  even  moderately,  "  Hsec  sunt  ejus 
"  [Bezse]  verba,  quibus  mihi  videtur  (si  modo  de 
"  habitu  loquitur,  sicut  antithesis  ostendere  vide- 
"  tur)  nimis  latam  salutis  viam  facere  :  quasi 
"  Christus  non  rejiciat  sceleratos,  sed  duntaxat 
"  sceleratissimos.  Enimvero  longe  aliter  loquun- 
"  tur  sacrae  literse." 

Not  only  Scripture  in  general,  he  might  have 
said,  but  that  discourse  in  particular,  on  which 

»oo  Matth.  vii.  23.  wi  Cas.  Defens.  Adversarii  Errores. 


234  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

Beza  was  then  commenting,  speaks  a  very  differ- 
ent language  :  Except  your  righteousness,  says 
Jesus  ^^^,  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  It  would  have  better 
suited  Beza's  system  of  Christian  morality,  to  have 
said,  Except  your  unrighteousness  shall  exceed  the 
wirighteoiis?iess  of  publicans  and  harlots,  ye  shall 
in  no  case  be  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
But  as  our  Lord's  declaration  was  the  reverse,  it  is 
worth  while  to  observe  in  what  manner  this  champ- 
ion of  Geneva  eludes  its  force,  and  reconciles  it  to 
his  own  licentious  maxims.  Hear  his  note  upon 
the  place:  "  Justitiae  nomine  intellige  sinceram  turn 
"  doctrinam  tum  vitam,  cum  verbo  Dei  videlicet, 
"  quod  est  justitise  vera  norma,  congruentem. 
"  Sed,  de  doctrina  potissimum  hie  agi  liquet  ex 
"  sequenti  reprehensione  falsarum  legis  inter- 
"  pretationum."  And  on  the  last  clause  of  the 
sentence,  nequaquam  ingressuros  in  regnum  cmlo- 
rum,  he  says,  "  Id  est,  indignos  fore  qui  in  eccle- 
"  sia  doceatis.  Nee  enim  de  quorumvis  piorum 
"  officio,  sed  de  solis  doctoribus  agit:  et  nomine 
"  regni  coelorum,  ut  alibi  ssepe,  non  triumphan- 
"  tem  (ut  vulgo  loquuntur,)  sed  adhuc  militan- 
"  tem,  et  ministerio  pastorum  egentem  ecclesiam 
«  intelligit." 

According  to  this  learned  commentator,  then, 
your  tHghteousness  here  means,  chiefh^  or  solely, 
your  orthodoxy  :  I  say,  chiefly  or  solely :  for,  ob- 

102  Matth.  V.  20. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  235 

serve  his  artful  climax,  in  speaking  of  teachers  and 
teaching.  When  first  he  obtrudes  the  word  doc- 
trine, in  explanation  of  the  word  righteousness, 
he  puts  it  only  on  the  level  with  a  good  life ;  it  is 
"  turn  doctrinam  turn  vitam."*  When  mentioned 
the  second  time,  a  good  life  is  dropt,  because  as 
he  affirms,  "  de  doctrina  potissimum  hie  agi  li- 
"  quet."  When  the  subject  is  again  resumed,  in 
explaining  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence,  every 
thing  which  relates  to  life  and  practice  is  excluded 
from  a  share  in  what  is  said ;  for  after  this  gradual 
preparation  of  his  readers,  they  are  plainly  told, 
"  de  solis  docJ;oribus  hie  agit."  Now,  every  body 
knows,  that  Beza  meant,  by  orthodoxy,  or  sound 
doctrine,  an  exact  conformity  to  the  Genevese 
standard.  The  import  of  our  Lord's  declaration, 
then,  according  to  this  bold  expositor,  amounts  to 
no  more  than  this,  '  If  ye  be  not  completely  or- 
'  thodox,  ye  shall  not  be  teachers  in  the  church.* 
In  this  way  of  expounding  Scripture,  what  pur- 
poses may  it  not  be  made  to  serve  ?  For  my 
part,  I  have  seen  nothing  in  any  commentator 
or  casuist,  which  bears  a  stronger  resemblance 
to  that  mode  of  subverting,  under  pretence  of 
explaining,  the  divine  law,  which  was  adopted 
by  the  Scribes,  and  so  severely  reprehended  by 
our  Lord.  In  the  passage  taken  from  John's 
Epistle,  I  do  not  find  that  Beza  has  had  any  imi- 
tators. In  the  version  of  the  like  phrase  in  the 
Gospel,  he  has  been  followed  by  the  Geneva 
French,  which  says,  Vous  qui  faitcs  le  metier 
dHniqiiiie, 


236  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x- 

§  13.  I  MIGHT  collect  many  more  passages,  but  I 
suppose  that  those  which  have  been  given,  will 
sufficiently  verify  what  has  been  advanced  con- 
cerning this  translator's  partiality.  Any  one  who 
critically  examines  his  translation,  will  see  how 
much  he  strains  in  every  page,  especially  in  Paul's 
Epistles,  to  find  a  place  for  the  favourite  terms 
and  phrases  of  his  party.  A  French  projector, 
Monsieur  Le  Cene  (whose  project  for  a  new 
translation  was,  in  what  regards  one  article,  con- 
sidered already,)  seems,  though  of  a  party  in  many 
things  opposite  to  Beza's,  to  have  entertained 
certain  loose  notions  of  translating,  which  in  gen- 
eral coincide  with  his ;  but,  by  reason  of  their 
different  parties,  would  have  produced,  in  the  ap- 
plication, contrary  effects.  As  a  contrast  to  Be- 
za's corrections  of  the  unguarded  style  (as  he  cer- 
tainly thought  it)  of  the  sacred  penmen,  I  shall 
give  a  few  of  Le  Gene's  corrections,  which  ho 
proposed,  with  the  same  pious  purpose  of  secur- 
ing the  unlearned  reader  against  seduction  ^°*. 
The  words  of  the  Apostle,  rendered  by  Beza,  Qui 
credit  ifi  eum  qui  justificat  impium  ^°^^  Le  Cene 
thus  translates  into  French :  Qui  croit  en  celui 
qui  justifie  celui  qui  avoit  ete  im  impie.  The  ex- 
pression rendered  by  Beza,  Quern  autem  vult  in- 
ditrat  ^'^^  Le  Cene  thinks  ought  to  be  corrected  ; 
and  though  he  does  not  in  so  many  words  say 
how,  it  is  plain,  from  the  tenor  of  his  remark,  that 
lie  would  have  it  permittit  ut  seipsum  indurtt.     He 


^^^  Proj.  &c.  ch.  xiv.  ^^^  Rom.  iv.  5. 

W5  Rom.  ix.  13. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  237 

adds,  "  It  behoveth  also  to  reform  (I  use  his  own 
"  style,  llfaudroit  aussi  reformer)  what  the  Vul- 
"  gate  and  Genevese  versions  (he  might  have  add- 
"  ed,  Moses  and  Paul)  represent  God  as  saying  to 
"  Pharaoh,  In  hoc  ipsum  excitdvi  te,  lit  ostendam  in 
"  te  virtutem  meant  ^"^ ;"  but  does  not  mention  the 
reformation  necessary. 

I  cannot  help  observing  here  by  the  way  that, 
though  Castalio  was,  in  regard  to  the  subject  of 
the  chapter  from  which  some  of  the  foregoing 
quotations  are  taken,  of  sentiments,  as  appears 
from  his  notes,  opposite  to  Beza's,  and  coincident 
with  Le  Cent's,  he  has  translated  the  whole  with 
the  utmost  fairness.  Nor  has  he  employed  any  of 
those  glossing  arts  recommended  by  Le  Cene,  and 
so  much  practised  by  Beza,  when  encountering  a 
passage  that  appeared  favourable  to  an  adversary. 
Merely  from  his  translation,  we  should  not  dis- 
cover that  his  opinions  of  the  divine  decrees,  and 
the  freedom  of  human  actions,  differed  from  Beza's. 
If  both  interpreters,  however,  have  sometimes 
failed  in  their  representations  of  the  sacred  au- 
thors, the  difference  between  them  lies  in  this  : 
the  liberties  which  Castalio  has  taken,  are  almost 
solely  in  what  regards  their  stjle  and  manner ; 
the  freedoms  used  by  Beza  affect  their  sentiments 
and  doctrine. 

But  to  return  to  Le  Cene,  of  whom  I  shall  give 
but  one  other  specimen  ;  the  words  rendered  by 
Beza,  Quia  iterum  dixit  Usaias,  excoicavit  oculos 
eorum,  et  obduravit  cor  eorum  ;  ne  vide  ant  ocidis, 

lofi  Rom.  ix.  17.     Exod.  ix.  16. 
VOL.  n.  30 


238  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

et  sint  intelligentes  corde,  et  sese  convertant,  et 
sanem  eos^^^ ;  he  proposes  in  this  manner  to  ex- 
press in  French  :  Ce  qui  avoit  fait  dire  a  Isaie  ; 
ils  ont  aveugles  leurs  yeux  et  endurci  leur  cosur, 
pour  ne  pas  voir  de  leurs  yeux,  et  pour  ri' entendre 
point  du  cosur,  et  de  peur  de  se  convertir,  et  d''etre 
gueris,  "  They  have  blinded  their  eyes,  and  har- 
"  dened  their  heart,"  &c.  instead  of,  "  He  hath 
"  blinded,"  &c.  Surel}^  the  difference  between  these 
interpretations,  regards  more  the  sense  than  the 
expression.  In  the  latter  instances,  we  have  the 
Arminian  using  the  same  weapons  against  the 
Calvinist,  which,  in  the  former,  we  saw  the  Cal- 
vinist  employ  against  the  Arminian ;  a  conduct 
alike  unjustifiable  in  both. 

§  14.  These  examples  may  suffice  to  show  that, 
if  translators  §hall  think  themselves  entitled,  with 
Beza  and  Le  Cene,  and  the  anonymous  English 
translator  above  quoted,  to  use  such  liberties  witli 
the  original,  in  order  to  make  it  speak  their  own 
sentiments,  or  the  sentiments  of  the  party  to 
which  they  have  attached  themselves,,  we  shall 
soon  have  as  many  Bibles  as  we  have  sects,  each 
adapted  to  support  a  different  system  of  doctrine 
and  morality  ;  a  Calvinistic  Bible,  and  an  Ar- 
minian, an  Antinomian  Bible,  a  Pelagian,  and  I 
know  not  how  many  more.  Hitherto,  notwith- 
standing our  disputes,  we  have  recurred  to  a  com- 
mon standard  ;  and  this  circumstance,  hwvever 
lightly  it  may  be  thought  of,  has  not  been  without 
its  utility,  especially  in  countries  where  the  Chris- 

107  John,  xii.  39,  40. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  239 

tian  principle  of  tolera^'on  is  understood  and  prac- 
tised. It  has  abated  the  violence  of  all  sides, 
inspiring  men  with  candour  and  moderation  in 
judging  of  one  another,  and  of  the  importance  of 
the  tenets  which  discriminate  Ihem.  The  reverse 
would  take  place,  if  every  faction  had  a  standard 
of  its  own,  so  prepared,  as  to  be  clearly  decisive  in 
supporting  all  its  favourite  dogmas,  and  in  condemn- 
ing those  of  every  other  faction.  It  may  be  said, 
that  the  original  would  still  be  a  sort  of  common 
standard,  whose  authority  would  be  acknowledg- 
ed by  them  all.  It  no  doubt  would  :  but  Avhen 
we  consider  how  small  a  proportion  of  the  people, 
of  any  part}^  are  qualified  to  read  the  original, 
and  how  much  it  would  be  the  business  of  the 
leading  partizans,  in  every  sect,  to  pre-occupy  the 
minds  of  the  people,  in  regard  to  the  fidelity  of 
their  own  version,  and  the  partiality  of  every 
other ;  we  cannot  imagine  that  the  possession  of  a 
standard,  to  which  hardly  one  in  a  thousand  could 
have  recourse,  would  have  a  sensible  effect  upon 
the  party.  Of  so  much  consequence  it  is,  in  a 
translator,  to  banish  all  party-considerations,  to 
forget,  as  far  as  possible,  that  he  is  connected  with 
any  party ;  and  to  be  ever  on  his  guard,  lest  the 
spirit  of  the  sect  absorb  the  spirit  of  the  Chris- 
tian, and  he  appear  to  be  more  the  follower  of 
some  human  teacher,  a  Calvin,  an  Arminius,  a  So- 
cinus,  a  Pelagius,  an  Arius,  or  an  Athanasius,  than 
of  our  only  divine  and  rightful  teacher,  Christ. 

§   15.  Some  allowance  is  no  doubt  to  be  made 
for  the  influence  of  polemic  theolog}^,  the  epidemic 


240  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

disease  of  those  times  wherein  most  of  the  ver- 
sions, which  I  have  been  examining,  were  com- 
posed. The  imaginations  of  men  were  heated, 
and  their  spirits  embittered  with  continual  wrang- 
lings,  not  easily  avoidable  in  their  circumstances  : 
and  those  who  were  daily  accustomed  to  strain 
every  expression  of  the  sacred  writers,  in  their 
debates  one  with  another,  were  surely  not  the 
fittest  for  examining  them  with  that  temper  and 
coolness,  which  are  necessary  in  persons  who 
would  approve  themselves  unbiassed  translators. 
Besides,  criticism,  especially  sacred  criticism,  was 
then  but  in  its  infancy.  Many  improvements, 
through  the  united  labours  of  the  learned  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  Europe,  have  since  accrued  to  that 
science.  Much  of  our  scholastic  controversy 
on  abstruse  and  undeterminable  questions,  well 
characterised  by  the  Apostle,  strifes  of  ivords, 
ivhich  minister  not  to  godly  edifying  ^%  is  now 
happily  laid  aside.  It  may  be  hoped,  that  some 
of  the  blunders  into  which  the  rage  of  disputation 
has  formerly  betrayed  interpreters,  may,  with 
proper  care,  be  avoided  ;  and  that  the  dotage 
about  questions,  which  gender  contention  (ques- 
tions than  which  nothing  can  be  more  hollow  or 
unsound  ^'^,)  being  over,  some  will  dare  to  speak, 
and  others  bear  to  hear,  the  things  which  become 
sound  doctrine,  the  doctrine  according  to  godli- 
ness. 

108  1  Tim.  vi.  3,  &,c.         ^^g  gge  an  excellent  sermon  on  this 
subject,  by  my  learned  colleague,  Dr.  Gerard,  vol.  II.  p.  129. 


iU.K.ife^> 


mimtvi^iion  tUe  iSUijentfi* 


Of  the  regard  zvhich^  in  translating  Scripture  into  English,  is 
due  to  the  Practice  of  former  Translators,  particularly  of 
the  Authors  Sf  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  of  the  common 
English  Translation. 

PART  I. 

THE  REGARD  DUE  TO  THE  VULGATE. 

In  the  former  Dissertation  \  I  took  occasion  to 
consider  what  are  the  chief  things  to  be  attended 
to  by  every  translator,  but  more  especially  a 
translator  of  holy  writ.  They  appeared  to  be  the 
three  following ;  first,  to  give  a  just  and  clear 
representation  of  the  sense  of  his  original  ;  sec- 
ondly, to  convey  into  his  version  as  much  of  his 
author's  spirit  and  manner  as  the  genius  of  the 
language,  in  which  he  writes,  will  admit ;  thirdly, 
as  far  as  may  be,  in  a  consistency  with  the  two 
other  ends,  to  express  himself  with  puritj^  in  the 
language  of  the  version.     If  these  be  the  princi- 

»  X.  Part  I. 


242  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

pal  objects,  as,  in  my  opinion,  they  are  ;  they  will 
supply  us  with  a  good  rule  for  determining  the 
precise  degree  of  regard  which  is  due  to  former 
translators  of  reputation,  whose  works  may  have 
had  influence  sufficient  to  give  a  currency  to  the 
terms  and  phrases  they  have  adopted.  When  the 
terms  and  phrases  employed  by  former  inter- 
preters are  well  adapted  for  conveying  the 
sense  of  the  author,  when  they  are  also  suited  to 
his  manner,  and  do  no  violence  to  the  idiom  of  the 
language  of  the  translation,  they  are  justly  prefer- 
red to  other  words  equally  expressive  and  proper, 
but  which,  not  having  been  used  by  former  inter- 
preters of  name,  are  not  current  in  that  applica- 
tion. This,  in  my  ophiion,  is  the  furthest  we  can 
go,  without  making  greater  account  of  translations 
than  of  the  original,  and  showing  more  respect  to 
the  words  and  idioms  of  fallible  men,  than  to 
the  instructions  given  by  the  unerring  Spirit  of 
God. 

§  2.  If,  in  respect  of  any  of  the  three  ends 
above  mentioned,  former  translators,  on  the  most 
impartial  examination,  appear  to  have  failed,  shall 
we  either  copy  or  imitate  their  errors  ?  When 
the  question  is  thus  put  in  plain  terms,  I  do  not 
know  any  critic  that  is  hardy  enough  to  answer  in 
the  affirmative.  But  we  no  sooner  descend  to  par- 
ticulars, than  we  find  that  those  very  persons  who 
gave  us  reason  to  believe  that  they  agree  with  us 
in  the  general  principles,  so  totally  diffisr  in  the 
application,  as    to    show   themselves  disposed  to 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  243 

sacrifice  all  those  primary  objects  in  translating,  to 
the  phraseology  of  a  favourite  translator.  Even 
Father  Simon  could  admit  that  it  would  be  wrong 
to  imitate  the  faults  of  Saint  Jerom,  and  to  pay 
greater  deference  to  his  authority  than  to  the  truth^. 
How  far  the  verdicts  he  has  pronounced  on  par- 
ticular passages  in  the  several  versions  criticised 
by  him,  are  consistent  with  this  judgment,  shall  be 
shown  in  the  sequel. 

§  3.  But,  before  I  proceed  farther,  it  may  not 
be  amiss  to  make  some  remarks  on  what  appears 
to  have  been  rSimon's  great  scope  and  design  in 
the  Critical  History ;  for,  in  the  examination  of 
certain  points  strenuously  maintained  by  him,  I 
shall  chiefly  be  employed  in  this  Dissertation. 
His  opinions  in  what  regards  biblical  criticism, 
have  long  had  great  influence  on  the  judgment  of 
the  learned,  both  Popish  and  Protestant.  His 
profound  erudition  in  Oriental  matters,  joined  with 
uncommon  penetration,  and,  1  may  add,  strong  ap- 
pearances of  moderation,  have  procured  him,  on 
this  subject,  a  kind  of  superiority,  which  is  hardly 
disputed  by  any.  Indeed,  if  I  had  not  read  the 
answers  made  to  those  who  attacked  his  work, 
which  are  subjoined  to  his  Critical  History,  and 
commonly,  if  I  mistake  not,  thought  to  be  his, 
though  bearing  different  names,  I  should  not  have 
spoken  so  dubiously  of  his  title  to  the  virtue  of 

^  En  eifet,  il  [Pagnin]  auroit  eu  tort  d'imiter  les  fiiutes  de 
St.  Jerome,  et  de  deferer  plus  a  I'autorite  de  ce  pore,  qu'  a 
la  verite.     Hist.  Crit.  du  Vieux  Testament,  liv.  ii.  ch.  xx. 


244  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

moderation.  But  throughout  these  tracts,  I  ac- 
knowledge, there  reigns  much  of  the  illiberal 
spirit  of  the  contrpvertist.  None  of  the  little  arts, 
however  foreign  to  the  subject  in  debate,  b}'^ 
which  contempt  and  odium  are  thrown  upon  an 
adversary,  are  omitted.  And,  we  may  say  with 
truth,  that  by  assuming  too  high  an  ascendant 
over  Le  Clerc  and  his  other  antagonists,  he  has 
degraded  himself  below  them,  farther,  I  believe, 
than,  by  any  other  method,  he  could  have  so  easily 
effected. 

§  4.  In  regard  to  Simon's  principal  work,  which 
I  have  so  often  had  occasion  to  mention,  the  Criti- 
cal History  of  the  Old  and  JSl'ew  Testaments,  its 
merit  is  so  well  known  and  established  in  the 
learned  world,  as  to  render  it  superfluous  now  to 
attempt  its  character.  I  shall  only  animadvert  a 
little  on  what  appear  to  me,  after  repeated  peru- 
sals, to  be  the  chief  objects  of  the  author,  and  oh 
his  manner  of  pursuing  these  objects.  It  will 
scarcely  admit  a  doubt,  that  his  primary  scope, 
throughout  the  whole  performance,  is  to  repre- 
sent Scripture  as,  in  every  thing  of  moment,  either 
unintelligible  or  ambiguous.  His  view  in  this  is 
sufficiently  glaring ;  it  is  to  convince  his  readers 
that,  without  the  aid  of  tradition,  whereof  the 
church  is  both  the  depositary  and  the  interpreter, 
no  one  article  of  Christianity  can,  with  evidence 
sufficient  to  satisfy  a  rational  inquirer,  be  deduced 
from  Scripture.  A  second  aim,  but  in  subordina- 
tion to  the  former,  is  to  bring  his  readers  to  such 
an  acquiescence  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which  he 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  245 

calls  the  translation  of  the  church,  as  to  consider 
the  deviations  from  it  in  modern  versions,  from 
whatever  cause  they  spring,  attention  to  the  mean- 
ing, or  to  the  letter,  of  the  original,  as  erroneous 
and  indefensible. 

The  manner  in  which  the  first  of  these  aims  has 
been  pursued  by  him,  I  took  occasion  to  consider 
in  a  former  Dissertation  ^  to  which  I  must  refer 
my  reader ;  I  intend  noAV  to  inquire  a  little  into 
the  methods  by  which  he  supports  this  secondary 
aim,  the  faithfulness  of  the  Vulgate,  and,  if  not  its 
absolute  perfection,  its  superiority,  at  least  to  eve- 
ry other  atteiQpt  that  has  been  made,  in  the  Wes- 
tern churches,  towards  translating  the  Bible. 
This  inquiry  naturally  falls  in  with  the  first  part 
of  my  subject  in  the  present  Dissertation,  in 
which  I  hope  to  show,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
reader,  that  he  might,  with  equal  plausibility,  have 
maintained  the  superiority  of  that  version  over 
every  translation  which  ever  shall,  or  can,  be  made 
of  holy  writ. 

§  5.  From  the  view  which  I  have  given  of  his 
design  with  respect  to  the  Vulgate,  one  would 
naturally  expect,  that  he  must  rate  very  highly 
the  verdict  of  the  council  of  Trent,  in  favour  of 
that  version,  that  he  must  derive  its  excellence, 
as  others  of  his  order  have  done,  from  immediate 
inspiration,  and  conclude  it  to  be  infallible.  Had 
this   been   his   method   of  proceeding,   his   book 

'  Diss.  III.  §  1—17. 
VOL.    II.  31 


246  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

would  have  excited  little  attention  from  the  be- 
ginning, except  from  those  whose  minds  were 
pre-engaged  on  the  same  side  b}^  bigotry  or  inter- 
est, and  would  probably,  long  ere  now,  have  been 
forgotten.  What  person  of  common  sense  in 
these  days  ever  thinks  of  the  ravings  of  Harduin 
the  Jesuit,  who,  in  opposition  to  antiquity  and  all 
the  world,  maintained,  that  the  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  wrote  in  Latin,  that  the  Vulgate  was 
the  original,  and  the  Greek  New  Testament  a  ver- 
sion, and  that  consequently  the  latter  ought  to  be 
corrected  by  the  former,  not  the  former  by  the 
latter,  with  many  other  absurdities  ^,  to  which 
Michaelis  has  done  too  much  honour,  in  attempt- 
ing to  refute  them  in  his  lectures  ? 

But  Simon's  method  was,  in  fact,  the  reverse. 
The  sentence  of  the  council,  as  was  hinted  former- 
ly, he  has  explained  in  such  a  manner  as  to  denote 
no  more  than  would  be  readily  admitted  by  every 

•*  Such  as,  that,  except  Cicero's  works,  Pliny's  Natural  His- 
tory, the  Georgics,  Horace's  Epistles,  and  a  few  others,  all  the 
ancient  classics  Greek  and  Latin  are  the  forgeries  of  monks  in 
the  13th  century.  Virgil's  Eneid  is  not  excepted.  This,  ac- 
cording to  him,  was  a  fable  invented  for  exhibiting  the  triumph 
of  the  church  over  the  synagogue.  Troy  was  Jerusalem,  in  a 
similar  manner,  reduced  to  ashes  after  a  siege.  Eneas  carrying 
his  gods  into  Italy,  represented  St.  Peter  travelling  to  Rome 
to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Romans,  and  there  lay  the  founda- 
tions of  the  hierarchy.  I  heartily  join  in  Boileau's  sentiment, 
(for  of  him  it  is  told,  if  I  remember  right)  "  I  should  like  much 
"  to  have  conversed  with  friar  Virgil,  and  friar  Livy,  and  friar 
"  Horace  ;  for  we  see  no  such  friars  now."  ' 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  247 

moderate  and  judicious  Protestant.  The  inspira- 
tion of  the  translator  he  disclaims,  and  conse- 
quently the  infallibilit}^  of  the  version.  He  as- 
cribes no  superiority  to  it  above  the  original. 
This  superiority  was  but  too*  plainly  im  ^Med  in 
the  indecent  comparison  which  Cardinal  Ximenes 
made  of  the  Vulgate  as  printed  in  his  edition  (the 
Complutensian)  between  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Septuagint,  to  our  Lord  crucified  between  two 
thieves,  making  the  Hebrew  represent  the  harden- 
ed thief,  and  the  Greek  the  penitent.  Simon,  on 
the  contrary,  shows  no  disposition  to  detract  from 
the  merit  either  of  the  original,  or  of  any  ancient 
version ;  though  not  inclinable  to  allow  more  to 
the  editions  and  transcripts  we  are  at  present  pos- 
sessed of,  than  the  principles  of  sound  criticism 
appear  to  warrant.  He  admits  that  we  have  3'et 
no  perfect  version  of  holy  writ,  and  d(^es  not  deny 
that  a  better  may  be  made  than  any  extant  \  In 
short,  nothing  can  be  more  e  juitable  than  the 
general  maxims  he  establishes.  It  is  by  this 
method  that  he  insensibly  gains  upon  his  readers, 
insinuates  himself  into  their  good  graces,  and 
brings  them,  before  they  are  aware,  to  repose  an 
implicit  confidence  in  his  discernment,  and  to  ad- 
mit, without  examining,  the  equity  of  his  particu- 
lar decisions.  Now  all  these  decisions  are  made 
artfully  to  conduct  them  to  one  point,  which  he  is 
the  surer  to  carr},  as  he  never  openly  proposes  it, 
namely,  to  consider  the  Vulgate  as  the  standard, 
by  a  conformity  to  which,  the  value  of  every  other 
version  ought  to  be  estimated. 

5  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  III.  ch.  i. 


248  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

§  6.  In  consequence  of  this  settled  purpose,  not 
declared  in  words,  but,  without  difficulty,  discov- 
ered by  an  attentive  reader,  he  finds  every  other 
version  which  he  examines,  either  too  literal  or 
too  loose,  in  rendering;  almost  every  passage 
which  he  specifies,  according  as  it  is  more  or  less 
so,  than  that  which  he  has  tacitly  made  to  serve 
as  the  common  measure  for  them  all.  And  though 
it  is  manifest,  that  even  the  most  literal  are  not 
more  blameably  literal  in  any  place  than  the  Vul- 
gate is  ill  other  places ;  or  even  the  most  loose 
translations  more  wide  of  the  sense  than  in  some 
instances  that  version  may  be  shown  to  be ;  he 
has  always  the  address,  to  bring  his  readers  (at 
least  on  their  first  reading  his  book)  to  believe 
with  him,  that  the  excess,  of  whatever  kind  it  be, 
is  in  the  other  versions,  and  not  in  the  Vulgate. 
In  order  to  this  he  is  often  obliged  to  argue  from 
contrary  topics,  and  at  one  time  to  defend  a  inode 
of  interpreting  which  he  condemns  at  another.- 
And  though  this  inevitably  involves  him  in  contra- 
dictions, these,  on  a  single,  or  even  a  second  or 
third  perusal,  are  apt  to  be  overlooked  by  a  reader 
who  is  not  uncommonly  attentive.  The  inconsisten- 
cies elude  the  reader's  notice  the  more  readily, 
as  they  are  not  brought  under  his  view  at  once, 
but  must  be  gathered  from  parts  of  the  work  not 
immediatel}^  connexed ;  and,  as  the  individual  pas- 
sages in  question  are  always  different,  though  the 
manner  in  which  they  are  translated,  and  on  which 
the  criticism  turns,  is  the  same.  Add  to  this, 
that   our   critic's   mode  of  arguing  is   the   more 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  249 

specious  and  unsuspected,  because  it  is  remark- 
ably simple  and  dispassionate.  It  will  be  neces- 
sary, therefore,  though  it  may  be  accounted  a 
bold  and  even  invidious  undertaking,  to  re-ex- 
amine a  few  of  the  passages  examined  by  Father 
Simon,  that  we  may,  if  possible,  discover  whether 
there  be  reason  for  the  charge  of  partiality  and 
inconsistency,  which  has  been  just  now  brought 
against  him. 

§  7.  In  his  examination  of  Erasmus's  version  of 
the  New  Testament,  he  has  the  following  obser- 
vation :  "  Where  we  have  in  the  Greek  tov  'oqlci- 
"  &SVTOS  vLov  0£ov  £v  BvvafxBi^^  the  ancient  Latin 
"  interpreter  has  very  well  and  literally  rendered 
"  it,  qui  priEdestinatus  est  filius  Dei  in  virtuie, 
"  which  was  also  the  version  used  in  the  Western 
"  churches  before  Saint  Jerom,  who  has  made  no 
"  change  on  this  place.  I  do  not  inquire  whether 
"  that  interprete.r  has  read  Ttgoogio&avrog  as  some 
"  believe  :  for  pr^destitiatus  signifies  no  more 
"  here  than  destitiatus  :  and  one  might  put  in  the 
"  translation  prcedestiimtus,  who  read  'ogiodsvTog, 
"  as  we  read  at  present  in  all  the  Greek  copies  ; 
"  and  there  is  nothing  here  that  concerns  Avhat 
"  theologians  commonly  call  predestination.  Eras- 
"  mus,  however,  has  forsaken  the  ancient  version, 
"  and  said,  qui  declaratus  fuit  Jilius  Dei  cum  po- 
"  tentia.  It  is  true,  that  many  learned  Greek 
"  fathers  have  explained  the  Greek  participle 
"  'ogLO&svTos  by  dei/deviog,  anocpavd^evxos  ;  that  is, 

*  Rom.  i.  4. 


250  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  demonstrated  or  declared  ;  but  an  explanation  is 
"  not  a  translation.  One  may  remark,  in  a  note, 
"  that  that  is  the  sense  which  Saint  Chrysostom 
^'  has  given  the  passage,  without  changing  the 
"  ancient  version,  as  it  very  well  expresses  the 
"  energy  of  the  Greek  word,  which  signifies 
"  rather  destmatiis  and  definitus  than  declaratus  ^." 
Thus  far  Simon. 

Admit  that  the  Vulgate  is  here  literal,  since  this 
critic  is  pleased  to  call  it  so ;  it  is  at  the  same 
time  obscure,  if  not  unmeaning.     What  the  import 

7  Ou  il  y  a  dans  le  Grec,  rov  6gi6{}evxo?  viov  Gsov  £v 
dvvausi^  I'ancien  interprete  Latin  a  fort  bien  traduit  a  la  let- 
tre,  qui  prccdestinatus  est  fUus  Dei  in  virtute  ;  et  c'est  mtme 
la  version  qui  etoit  en  usage  dans  les  eglises  d'Occident  avant 
Saint  Jerome,  qui  n'y  a  rien  change  en  cet  endroit.  Je 
n'examine  point  si  cet  interprete  a  lu  7i§oogi6davTOi^  comme 
quelques  uns  le  croyent  :  car  prcEclestinatus  ne  signifie  en  ce 
lieu-la  que  destinatus  ;  et  ainsi  Ton  a  pu  traduire  prwdestinaius 
en  lisant  ooiCOevrog,  comme  on  lit  presentement  dans  tous  les" 
exemplaires  Grecs,  et  il  ne  s'agit  nullement  de  ce  que  les  theo- 
logiens  appellent  ordinairement  predestination.  Erasme  cepen- 
dant  s'est  eloigne  de  cette  ancienne  version,  ayant  traduit  qui 
declaratus  fuit  filius  Dei  cum  potentia.  II  est  vrai  que  plusieurs 
doctcs  peres  Grecs  ont  exp'ique  le  verbe  Grec  btjiGdevxos  par 
Sei/OevTog^  ajiocpavOevTOs  c'est-a-dire  demontre  ou  declare  : 
mais  une  explication  n'est  pas  une  traduction.  L'on  peut  mar- 
quer  dans  une  note  que  c'est  la  le  sens  que  Saint  Chrysostome 
a  donne  a  ce  passage,  sans  changer  pour  cela  la  version  an- 
cienne, qui  exprime  tresbien  la  force  du  mot  Grec  qui  signifie 
plutot  destinatus^  definitus  que  declaratus.  Hist.  Crit.  des  Ver- 
sions du  N.  T,  ch.  xxii. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  251 

of  the  word  predestinated  may  be  when,  as  he 
says,  it  has  no  relation  to  what  divines  call  predes- 
tination, and  consequently  cannot  be  synonymous 
with  predetermined,  foreordained,  he  has  not  been 
so  kind  as  to  tell  us,  and  it  will  not  be  in  every 
body's  power  to  guess.  For  my  part,  I  do  not 
comprehend  that  curious  aphorism  as  here  appli- 
ed, An  explanation  is  not  a  ti'anslation.  Trans- 
lation is  undoubtedly  one  species,  and  that  both 
the  simplest  and  the  most  important  species,  of 
explanation  :  and  when  a  word  is  found  in  oiie 
language,  which  exactly  hits  the  sense  of  a  word 
in  another  language  as  used  in  a  particular  pas- 
sage, though 'it  should  not  reach  the  meaning  in 
other  places,  it  is  certainly  both  the  proper  trans- 
lation, and  the  best  explanation,  of  the  word  in 
that  passage. 

And,  for  the  truth  of  this  sentiment,  I  am  hap- 
py to  have  it  in  my  power  to  add,  that  I  have  the 
concurrence  of  Mr.  Simon  himself  most  explicitly 
declared.  Speaking  of  a  Spanish  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  by  a  Portuguese  Jew,  which 
is  very  literal,  as  all  Jewish  translations  are,  he 
says^,  "  This  grammatical  rigour  does  not  often 
"  suit  the  sense.     We  must  distinguish  between  a 

s  Cette  rigeur  de  grammaire  ne  s''accorde  pas  souvent  avec 
le  sens.  II  faut  tnettre  de  la  difference  entre  im  dictionaire  et 
une  traduction.  Dans  le  premier  on  explique  les  mots  selon 
leur  signification  propre,  au-lieu  que  dans  Tautre  il  est  quelque- 
fois  necessaire  de  detourner  les  mots  de  leur  significations 
propres  et  primitives,  pour  les  ajuster  aux  autres  mots 
aveclesquels  ils  sent  joints.     Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II.  ch.  xix. 


252  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  dictionary  and  a  translation.  In  the  former,  one 
"  explains  the  words  according  to  their  proper 
"  signification,  whereas,  in  the  latter,  it  is  sonie- 
"  times  necessary  to  divert  them  from  their  prop- 
"  er  and  primitive  signification,  in  order  to  adjust 
"  them  to  the  other  words  with  which  they  are 
"  connected."  In  another  placed  "  He  (Pag?iin) 
"  has  imagined  that,  in  order  to  make  a  faithful 
"  translation  of  Scripture,  it  was  necessary  to  fol- 
"  low  the  letter  exactly,  and  according  to  the  rigour 
"  of  grammar  ;  a  practice  quite  opposite  to  that 
"  pretended  exactness,  because  it  rarely  happens 
*' that  two  languages  agree  in  their  idioms  ;  and 
"  thus,  so  far  from  expressing  his  original  in  the 
"  same  purity  wherein  it  is  written,  he  disfigures 
"  it,  and  spoils  it  of  all  its  ornaments."  In  the 
former  of  these  quotations,  the  author  shows  that 
the  literal  method  is  totally  unfit  for  conveying  an 
author's  sense,  and  therefore  ill  suited  for  an- 
swering the  first  great  end  in  translating  ;  and  in 
the  latter,  that  it  is  no  bettpr  adapted  either  for 
doing  justice  to  an  author's  manner,  or  for  pro- 
ducing a  work  which  can  be  useful  or  agreeable, 
and   therefore  equally  unfit   for   all   the   primary 

^  II  s'est  imagin?  que  pour  faire  une  traduction  fiddle  de 
rEcriture,  il  etoit  necoejairc  de  snivre  la  lettre  cxactment  et 
selon  la  rigeur  de  la  grammaire  ;  ce  qui  est  tout-a-fait  oppose 
a  cette  pretendue  exactitude,  parce  qu"'il  est  rare  que  deux 
langues  se  rencontrent  dans  leurs  ia^ons  de  parlcr  :  et  ainsi, 
bien  loin  d''exprimer  son  original  dans  la  meme  purete  qu'il  est 
ecrit^  il  le  defigure,  et  le  depouille  de  tous  ses  ornemens.  Hist. 
Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II.  ch.  xx. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  253 

purposes  of  translating.  Had  it  been  this  author's 
declared  intention  to  refute  his  own  criticism 
on  the  passage  quoted  from  Erasmus,  he  could 
have  said  nothing  stronger  or  more  pertinent. 

I  shall  just  add  to  his  manner  of  reasoning  on 
this  subject,  a  particular  example,  which  may 
serve  as  a  counterpart  to  the  remark  on  Erasmus 
above  quoted.  Speaking  of  the  translators  of 
Port  Royal,  he  says*",  "  They  have  followed  the 
"  grammatical  sense  of  the  Greek  text  in  translat- 
"  ing  John,  xvi.  13.  II  vous  fera  entrer  dans  toutes 
"  les  verites,  as  if  this  other  sense,  which  is  in  the 
"  Vulgate,  an^  which  the}'^  have  put  into  their 
"  note,  il  vous  enseignera  toute  verite,  did  not  an- 
"  swer  exactly  to  the  Greek.  But  John  Boys  has 
"  not  thought  the  new  translators  worthy  of  ap- 
"  probation  for  changing  docebit,  which  is  in  our 
"  Latin  edition,  into  another  word.  Vehis,  says  this 
"  learned  Protestant,  docebit,  7ion  male,  nam  et 
"  6  diSasxav  suo  modo  oSriysi,  et  6  oBriyav  suo  modQ 
"  didaaxst.'"'  Yet  let  it  be  observed,  that  here  it  is 
the  new  interpreters,  and  not  the  Vulgate,  who 
very  well  express  the  energy  of  the  Greek  word, 
and  that  without  either  deserting  the  meaning  or 
darkening  it,  as  the  Vulgate,  in  the  former  case, 

I*'  lis  ont  suivi  le  sens  g-rammatical  du  texte  Grec  en  tra- 
duisant,  il  vous  fera  entrer,  &c.  comme  si  cet  autre  sen?  qui  est 
dans  la  Vulgate,  et  qu'ils  ont  mit  dans  leur  note,  il  vous 
enseignera,  kc.  ne  repondoit  pas  exactement  au  Grec.  Mais 
Jean  Boys  n'a  pu  approuver  les  nouveaux  traducteurs,  qui 
ont  change  docebit,  qui  est  dans  notre  edition  Latine  en  un 
autre  mot.  Pectus,  &c.  Hist.  Crit.  de  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch. 
xxxvi. 

VOL,  n.  32 


254  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

has  not  scrupled  to  do.  Here  he  has  given,  in- 
deed, the  most  ample  scope  for  retorting  upon  the 
Vulgate,  in  his  own  words,  that  odi^ysi  may  indeed 
be  explained  by  docebit,  "  but  an  explanation  is 
"  not  a  translation." 

§  8.  But  this  is  not  all.  Our  critic  objects  also 
to  the  freedom  which  Erasmus  has  taken  in  trans- 
lating the  Greek  preposition  £v  in  the  forecited 
passage  by  the  Latin  cum.  "  Besides,"  says  he", 
"  although  the  Greek  particle  sv  signifies,  in  the 
"  style  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
"  which  is  conformable  to  that  of  the  Seventy,  in 
"  and  cum,  it  had  been  better  to  translate,  as  it  is 
"  in  the  Vulgate,  in  virtute,  or  in  potentia,  and  to 
"  write  on  the  margin  that  in  signifies  also  cum, 
"  because  there  is  but  one  single  preposition 
"  which  answers  to  them  both  in  the  Hebrew  or 
"  Chaldaic  language,  v/ith  which  the  Greek  of  the 
"  New  Testament  often  agrees,  especially  in  this 
"  sort  of  prepositions." 

Now  it  is  very  remarkable,  that  there  is  nothing 
which  he  treats  as  more  contemptible  and  even  ab- 
surd in  Arias  Montanus,  than  this  very  attempt  at 

^*  De  plus,  bien  que  la  particule  Grecque  ev  signifie  dans  le 
stile  des  ecrivains  du  Nouveau  Testament  qui  est  conforme  a 
celui  des  Septante,  in  et  cum,  il  eut  ete  mieux  de  traduire, 
comme  il  y  a  dans  la  Vulgate  in  virtute  ou  in  potentia,  et  de 
mettre  a  la  marge  que  in  signifie  aussi  cum  ;  parce  qu'il  n'y  a 
qu'une  seule  preposition  qui  reponde  a  ces  deux-la  dans  la  lan- 
gue  Ebraique  ou  Caldaique,  a  laquelle  le  Grec  du  N.  T.  est 
souvent  conforme,  sur-tout  dans  ces  sortes  de  prepositions.  N. 
T.  1.  II.  c.  xxii. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  255 

uniformity,  in  translating  the  Hebrew  prepositions 
and  other  particles.  "  Can  one,"  says  he  ^^  "  give 
"  the  title  of  a  very  exact  interpreter,  to  a  trans- 
"  lator,  who  almost  every  where  confounds  the 
"  sense  of  his  text  ?  In  effect,  all  his  erudition 
"  consists  in  translating  the  Hebrew  words  literal- 
"  ly,  according  to  their  most  ordinary  signification, 
"without  minding  whether  it  agree,  or  not,  with 
*•  the  context  where  he  employs  it.  When  the 
"  Hebrew  words  are  equivocal,  one  ought,  me- 
"  thinks,  to  have  some  regard  to  that  signification 
"which  suits  them  in  the  places  where  they  are 
"  found ;    an^  it  is  ridiculous  to  assign  them  in- 


12  Peut  on  donner  la  qualite  d''interprete  tres-exact  a  un  tra- 
ducteur  qui  renverse  presque  partout  le  sens  de  son  texte  ?  En 
effet,  toute  son  erudition  consiste  a  traduire  les  mots  Hebreux 
a  la  lettre,  selon  leur  signification  la  plus  ordinaire,  sans  pren- 
dre garde  si  elle  convient  ou  non,  aux  endroits  ou  il  Temyloy. 
Quand  les  mots  Hebreux  sont  equivoques,  on  doit,  ce  semble, 
avoir  egard  a  la  signification  qui  leur  est  propre  selon  les  lieux 
ou  ils  se  trouvent,  et  il  est  ridicule  de  mettre  indifferement 
toute  sorte  de  signification,  soit  qu'elle  convienne,  ou  qu'elle 
ne  convienne  pas.  Ce  defaut  est  cependant  repandu  dans  toute 
la  version  d'  Arias  Montanus,  qui  a  fait  paroitre  en  cela  tres- 
peu  de  jugement.  II  a  traduit,  par  example,  presque  en  tous 
les  endroits  la  preposition  Ebraique  al  par  la  preposition  Latine 
super :  et  cependant  on  salt,  que  cette  preposition  signifie  dans 
I'Ebreu  tantot  super,  tantot  juxta,  et  quelquefois  cum.  II  a  fait 
la  meme  chose  a  I'egard  de  la  lettre  Lamed,  laquelle  repond  au 
pour  des  Fran5ois,  ou  elle  est  une  marque  du  datif.  C'est  ainsi 
qu'aii  chapitre  premier  de  la  Genese,  verset  sixieme,  ou  Pag- 
nin  avoit  traduit  assez  nettement  Diviclat  aquas  ab  aquis,  il  a  tra- 
duit sans  aucun  sens  Dividat  aquas  ad  aquas.  Hist.  Crit.  du  V. 
T.  liv.  il.  ch.  XX. 


256  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  differently  every  sort  of  signification  suitable  or 
"  unsuitable.  Yet  this  fault  abounds  in  every 
"  part  of  the  version  of  Arias  Montanus,  who  has 
"  herein  displayed  very  little  judgment.  He  has, 
"  for  example,  translated,  in  almost  every  passage, 
"  the  Hebrew  preposition  al  by  the  Latin  super ; 
"  whereas  it  is  well  known  that  this  preposition 
"  signifies  in  Hebrew,  sometimes  super,  some- 
*'  times  juxta,  sometimes  cum.  He  has  done  the 
"  same  in  regard  to  the  letter  Lamed,  which  an- 
"  swers  to  the  French  pour,  where  it  is  a  mark  of 
"  the  dative.  Thus  the  words  of  Genesis,  which 
"  Pagnin  had  rendered  clearly  enough  Dividat 
"  aquas  ab  aquis,  he  has  translated,  without  any 
"  meaning,  Dividat  aquas  ad  aquas.'''' 

Here  in  two  parallel  cases,  for  the  question  is 
the  same  in  both,  whether  the  sense  or  the  letter 
merit  most  the  attention  of  the  translator,  or  more 
particularly,  whether  or  not  the  prepositions  of  the 
original  ought  uniformly  to  be  translated  in  the 
same  way,  without  regard  to  the  sense,  our  learn- 
ed critic  has  pronounced  two  sentences  perfectly 
opposite  to  each  other.  This  opposition  is  the 
more  flagrant,  as  Arias  had  actually  taken  the 
method  which  Simon  insists  that  Erasmus  ought 
to  have  taken.  He  followed  the  letter  in  the 
text,  and  gave  the  meaning,  by  way  of  comment, 
on  the  margin.  The  second  decision,  however, 
we  may  reasonably  conclude,  is  the  decision  of 
his  judgment,  as  neither  of  the  interpreters  com- 
pared, Pagnin    nor  Arias,    is   a  favourite    with 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  257 

him;  whereas  the  first  is  the  decision  merely 
of  his  affection,  as  Erasmus  was  opposed  to  the 
Vulgate. 

§  9.  In  further  confirmation  of  the  judgment 
I  have  just  now  given,  it  may  be  observed  that  in 
every  case  wherein  the  Vulgate  is  not  concerned, 
his  verdict  is  uniform  in  preferring  the  sense  to 
the  letter.  "  There  is,"  says  he  ",  "  in  this  last 
"  revisal  of  the  version  of  Geneva,  Alors  on  com- 
"  menca  d'appeller  du  nom  de  VEternel,  which 
"  yields  an  obscure  and  even  absurd  meaning. 
"  It  is  indeed  true  that  Aquila  has  translated 
"  word  for  word  after  the  same  manner ;  but  he 
"  has  followed  literally  the  grammatical  sense. 
"  Now,  with  the  aid  of  a  very  slight  acquaintance 
"  wdth  Hebrew,  one  might  know  that  this  phrase 
"  appeller  du  nom  signifies  to  invoke  the  name, 
"  especially  when  the  discourse  is  of  God."  In 
like  manner,  when  the  Vulgate  is  concerned  in 
the  question,  and  happens  to  follow  the  sense  in 
an  instance  wherein  the  version  compared  with  it 
prefers  the  letter,  we  may  be  certain  that  our 
author's   decision   is   then   for  the  sense.     "  The 


^*  II  y  a  dans  cette  derniere  revision  [de  la  version  de  Ge- 
neve] Allots  oil  coinmenca  d^appelUr  du  nom  de  VEternel.  Ce 
qui  fait  un  sens  obscur,  et  meme  impertinent.  II  est  bien  vrai 
qu'  Aquila  a  traduit  mot  pour  mot  de  la  meme  maniere  :  mais 
il  a  suivi  a  la  lettre  le  sens  grammatical,  et  pour  peu  qu'on 
ait  lu  d'Ebreu,  on  sait  que  cette  fa^on  de  parler  appeller  du 
nom  signifie  invoquer  le  nom  de  quelqu'un,  principalement 
quand  il  est  parle  de  Dieu.  Hist,  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II.  ch. 
xxiv. 


2S8  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  Seventy,"  he  tells  us  ",  "  have  rendered  Enixaxa- 
"  gaTos  ov  aito  navxatv  xav  xTr^vav,  where  we  have 
"  in  the  Vulgate,  maledictus  es  inter  omnia  ani- 
"  mantia  :  the  Greek  word  aTro,  used  by  the  Sep- 
"  tuagint  in  this  place,  is  unsuitable  and  nonsen- 
"  sical."  Such  is  the  sentence  which  our  author 
invariably  pronounces  on  this  truly  senseless  mode 
of  translating. 

But  still  it  is  with  a  secret  exception  of  all  the 
instances  wherein  this  senseless  mode  of  translat- 
ing has  been  adopted  by  the  Vulgate.  For  this 
adoption  has  instantly  converted  it  into  the  only 
proper  method,  and  the  version  which  the  plain 
sense  of  the  passage  indicates,  must  then  be  con- 
signed to  the  margin ;  for  an  explanation  is  not  a 
translation. 

§  10.  To  the  preceding  remarks,  I  shall  sub- 
join two  more  of  Father  Simon  on  the  version  of 
Erasmus,  in  which  he  cannot  indeed  accuse  that 
learned  interpreter  of  departing  further  either 
from  the  letter,  or  from  the  sense,  than  the  Vul- 
gate itself,  but  merely  of  leaving  the  Vulgate, 
and  rendering  the  Greek  Avord  differently.  Simon 
has  in  this  cause  a  powerful  ally,  Johre  Bois, 
canon  of  Ely,  a  man  whom,  not  without  reason, 
he  extols  for  his  learning  and  critical  sagacity ; 

1*  Les  Septante  ont  traduit  Ejiixazagaros  (jv  ayto  TiavTWV 
t(jov  xTr/vcov^  ou  il  y  a  dans  la  Vulgate,  Maledictus  es  inter  om- 
nia  anirnantia  :  le  mot  Grec  utto^  dont  les  Septante  se  sont 
servis  en  cet  endroit  n'y  convient  point,  et  ne  fait  aucun  sens. 
Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II.  ch.  v. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  259 

and  one  who  had,  besides,  such  an  attachment  to 
the  Vulgate  as  exactly  tallied  with  his  own.  For 
Bois,  in  every  instance  wherein  the  Vulgate  is 
literal,  finds  a  freer  method  loose,  profane,  and  in- 
tolerable :  and  when  the  Vulgate  follows  more  the 
sense  than  the  letter,  which  is  not  unfrequently 
the  case,  no  person  can  be  more  decisive  than  he, 
that  the  literal  method  is  servile,  barbarous,  un- 
meaning, and  such  as  befits  only  a  school-boy. 

But  to  return  to  Simon :  "  Erasmus,"  says  he  *^, 
"  rendered  not  very  appositely  obscurant  what  in 
"  the  Vulgate  was  exterminant,  and  in  the  Greek 
"  atpavL^ovaL.  ^  John  Bois,  who  has  defended  in 
"  this  place  the  Latin  interpreter,  by  the  au- 
"  thority  of  Saint  Chrysostom,  who  explains  the 
"  verb  afavi^ovcfL  by  biatpd-eigovdi,  they  corrupt^ 
"  maintains  that  Ave  ought  to  give  this  meaning  to 
"  the  Latin  verb  exterminant.  He  condemns  the 
"  new  interpreters  who  have  translated  otherwise, 
"  under  pretence  that  this  word  is  not  good  Latin. 
"  Parum  fortasse  eleganter^''  says  he,  "  verbum 
"  acpavi^ovai  sic  reddidit,  sed  apposite  ut  qui  max- 


^5  II  n'etoit  pas  a  propos  qu'Erasme  traduisit  obscurant^  oii 
il  y  a  dans  la  Vulgate  exterminant^  et  dans  le  Grec  acpavt^ovGi, 
(Mat.  vi.  16.)  Jean  Bois  qui  a  defendu  en  cet  endroit  I'inter- 
prete  Latin  par  I'autorite  de  Saint  Chrysostome,  lequel  explique 
le  verbe  a(pavt^ov6i  par  SLa(pOeigov6L^  corrompent,  pretend  qu'on 
doit  donner  ce  sens  au  verbe  Latin  exterminant.  II  condamne 
les  nouveaux  interpretes  qui  ont  traduit  autrement  sous  pre- 
texte  que  ce  mot  n'est  pas  assez  Latin.  Si  cette  expression, 
dit-ii,  n'a  rien  d'elegant,  au  moins  elle  est  tres-propre.  Hist. 
Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxii. 


260  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  2me."  But  how  is  the  authority  of  Chrysostom 
concerned  in  the  question  ?  Chrysostom,  indeed, 
affirms  tliat  a(pavitovai  is  in  this  place  equivalent 
to  diaipd'eigovaL,  but  says  nothing  at  all  of  exter- 
minant,  the  only  word  about  which  we  are  in 
doubt. 

For  my  part,  I  believe  I  shall  not  be  singular 
in  thinking,  that  it  is  far  from  being  apposite  in 
the  present  application.  "  John  Bois,"  he  says, 
"  maintains  that  we  ought  to  give  the  same  mean- 
"  ing  with  BLacpQ'BigovoL  to  the  Latin  verb."  But 
is  it  in  the  power  of  John  Bois,  or  of  Richard 
Simon,  or  of  both,  to  give  what  sense  they 
please  to  a  Latin  verb }  On  this  hypothesis,  in- 
deed, they  may  translate  in  any  way,  and  defend 
any  translation  which  they  choose  to  patronize. 
But  if,  in  Latin,  as  in  all  other  languages,  proprie- 
t}^  niust  be  determined  by  use,  the  word  extermi- 
nant  is  in  this  place,  I  say  not  inelegant,  but 
improper.  It  is  not  chargeable  with  inelegance, 
because  used  by  good  writers,  but  is  charged  with 
impropriety,  because  unauthorized  in  this  accepta- 
tion. And  even,  if  it  should  not  be  quite  unexam- 
pled, it  must  be  admitted  to  be  obscure  and  in- 
definite, on  account  of  the  uncommonness  of  the 
application. 

§  11.  The  other  example  follows":  "Erasmus' 
"  desertion  of  the  ancient  edition  has  often  arisen 

^^  Cet  tloig'nement  vient  souvent  de  cc  qu'il  [Erasme]  a  cru 
que   Tancienne  edition  n'est  pas   assez  Latine.     Par  example 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  261 

"  from   the  belief  that  the  Latin   was   not  pure 
"  enough.     For  example,  instead  of  saying  nohiit 
"  cotisolari,  he  has  said  noluit  consolationem  admit- 
"  tere.      Yet   consolari  occurs  in  the  passive  in 
"  some  ancient  authors.     Besides,  this   great  ex- 
"  actness  about  the  propriety  of  the  Latin  words 
"  in  a  version  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  always  sea- 
"  sonable.     The  interpreter's  principal  care  should 
"  be  to  express  well  the  sense  of  the  original." 
True.      But  to  express   the    sense   well,  and  to 
give  it  in  proper  words,  are,  in   my  apprehension, 
very  nearly,  if  not  entirely,  coincident.     I  admit, 
indeed  (if  that  be  the   author's  meaning,)  that  it 
would  not  be   seasonable   to   recur  to  circumlocu- 
tion,  or   to  affected  and   far-fetched  expressions, 
and  avoid  such  as  are  simple  and  perspicuous,  be- 
cause not  used  by  the  most  elegant  writers.     But 
this  is  not  the  case  here.     The  expression  which 
Erasmus   has   adopted,    is    sufficiently   plain   and 
simple  ;  and,  though  consolari  may  sometimes  be. 
found  in  a  passive  signification,  there   can  be  no 
doubt   that  the   active   meaning  is   far  the  more 
common.     Now,  to  avoid  even  the   slightest  am- 
biguity  in  the   version,  where   there    is   nothing 

(dans  Mat.  ii.  18.)  au  lieu  de  noluit  consolari,  il  a  mis  noluit 
consolationem  adinittere.  On  trouve  cependant  consolari  au 
passif,  dans  d"'anciens  auteurs;  outre  que  cette  grande  exacti- 
tude pour  la  propriete  des  mots  Latins,  dans  une  verpion  do 
I'Ecriture,  n'est  pas  toujours  de  saison.  L'on  doit  principale- 
ment  prendre  g'arde  a  bien  exprimer  le  sens  Je  Torigirial. 
Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxii. 

VOL.  n.  33 


262  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

ambiguous  in  the  original,  would  be  a  sufficient 
reason  with  any  man  but  an  Arias  or  an  Aquila, 
for  a  greater  deviation  from  the  form  of  the 
expression,  than  this  can  reasonably  be  ac- 
counted. 

§  12.  This  critical  historian  is  indeed  so  sensi- 
ble of  the  futility  of  the  greater  part  of  his  re- 
marks on  the  version  of  Erasmus,  that  he,  in  a 
manner,  apologizes  for  it.  "  This  sort  of  altera- 
"  tions,"  says  he  ^\  "  so  frequent  in  Erasmus's  ver- 
"  sion,  is  generally  of  no  importance  ;  but  it  would 
"  have  been  more  judicious  to  alter  nothing  in  the 
"  ancient  interpreter  of  the  church,  but  what  it 
"  was  absolutely  necessary  to  correct,  in  order 
"  to  render  him  more  exact  :  and  perhaps  it 
"  would  have  been  better  to  put  the  corrections 
"  in  the  margin  in  form  of  remarks."  This  is  a 
topic  to  which  he  is  perpetually  recurring.  It 
was  not  unsuitable  for  one  who  thought  as  Father 
Simon  seems  sometimes  to  have  done,  to  use  this 
plea  as  an  argument  against  making  new  transla- 
tions of  the  Bible  into  Latin  :  but  it  is  not  at.  all 
pertinent  to  obtrude  it  upon  the  readers  (as  he 
often  does,)  in  the  examination  of  the  versions 
actually  made.     The  question,  in  regard  to  these, 

*''  Ces  sortes  de  changemens  qni  sont  frequents  dans  la  ver- 
sion d'Erasme,  sont  la  pluspart  de  nuUe  importance  ;  mais  il 
etoit  plus  judicieux  de  ne  changer  dans  Pancien  interprete  de 
I'eglise,  que  ce  qu'il  etoit  il  absolument  necessaire  de  corriger, 
pour  le  rendre  plus  exact  :  et  peut-etre  meme  etoit  il  mieux 
de  mettre  les  corrections  a  la  marge,  en  forme  de  remarque. 
Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxii. 


p.,. J  DISSERTATIONS.  263 

is,  or  ought  to  be,  solely  concerning  the  justness 
of  the  version.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  conceive  another 
motive  for  confounding  topics  so  different,  but  to 
excite  such  prejudices  in  the  readers,  as  may  pre- 
clude a  candid  examination. 

As  to  his  critique  upon  the  translation  made  by 
Erasmus,  it  appears  to  me,  I  own,  exceedingly 
trifling.  I  believe  every  impartial  reader  will  be 
disposed  to  conclude  as  much  from  the  examples 
above  produced.  And  I  cannot  help  adding,  in 
regard  to  the  whole  of  his  criticisms  on  that 
version,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few,  that 
they  are  either  injudicious,  the  changes  made  by 
the  interpreter  being  for  the  better  ;  or  frivolous, 
the  changes  being,  at  least,  not  for  the  worse. 
I  admit  a  few  exceptions.  Thus,  the  cui  servio  of 
the  Vulgate,  is  preferable  to  the  quern  colo  of 
Erasmus,  as  a  version  of  a  Xaigsva^^,  and  better 
suited  to  the  scope  of  the  passage.  A^ixovgyovv- 
xav  ds  avjav^^,  could  not  have  been  more  justly 
rendered  than  by  the  Vulgate,  ministrantibiis  autem 
illis.  The  expression  adopted  by  Erasmus,  Cum 
autem  illi  sacrificarent,  is  like  one  of  Beza's 
stretches,  though  on  a  different  side.  Simon's 
censure  of  this  passage  deserves  to  be  recorded 
as  an  evidence  of  his  impartiality,  in  his  theolog- 
ical capacity  at  least,  however  much  we  may 
think  him  sometimes  biassed  as  a  critic.  "  Eras- 
"  mus,"  says  he^'-,  "  has  limited  to  the  sacrifice, 

^8  Rojn.  i.  9,  19  Acts,  xiil.  2. 

20  II  a  limite  au  sacrifice  ou  a  Taction  publique  que  les  Grecs 
appellent  liturgie,   et   les   Latins  messe,  ce  qu'on  doit  entendre' 


264  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  or  the  public  action  which  the  Greeks  call  lit- 
"  urgy,  and  the  Latins  mass,  that  which,  in  this 
"  place,  ought  to  be  understood  of  the  ministry 
"  and  functions  in  general,  of  the  first  ministers 
"  of  the  church.  He  had,  therefore,  no  reason 
"  to  reform  the  version  of  the  ancient  interpre- 
"  ter,  who  expresses,  agreeably  both  to  the 
"  letter  and  to  the  sense,  the  Greek  verb 
"  Xsirovgysiv.^'' 

Among  the  Romish  translators  into  modern 
languages,  Erasmus,  in  this  particular,  soon  had 
his  imitators.  Corbin,  in  his  French  version,  ren- 
dered that  passage,  Eiix  celebrans  le  saint  sacri- 
fice de  la  messe.  After  him.  Father  Veron,  Les 
Jipotres  celebroient  la  messe  au  Seigiieiir.  "  The 
"  reason,"  says  Simon  ^\  "  which  Veron  offers 
"  for  translating  it  in  this  manner,  is  because 
"  the  Calvinists  had  often  asked  him  in  what, 
"  passage  of  Scripture  it  was  mentioned  that  the 
"  Apostles  ever  said  mass."  This  plea  of  Ve- 
ron is  not  unlike  the  mode  of  reasoning  in  his 
own  defence,   of  which  I  had  occasion  formerly 

en  ce  lieu-la  generalement  duministere  etdes  fonctions  des  pre- 
miers ministres  de  I'eglise,  II  n' a  done  pas  eu  raison  de  reform- 
er la  version  de  I'ancien  interprete  qui  exprime  tr.s-bi-n  a  la 
lettre,  et  selon  le  sens,  le  verbe  Grec  XeiTovgyaiv.  Hist.  Crit. 
des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxiii. 

2^  La  raison  qu''il  apporte  de  sa  traduction  en  cet  endroit,  est 
que  les  Calvinistes  lui  avoient  souvent  demande  en  quel  lieu  de 
I'Ecriture  il  etoit  marque  que  les  apotres  eussent  dit  la  messe. 
Hist  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxxi. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  265 

to  produce  some  examples  from  Beza^^     That 
father,  that  he  might  not  again  be  at  a  loss  for 
an  answer  to  such  troublesome  querists  as  he  had 
found  in   those  disciples  of  Calvin,  was  resolved 
that,  whether  the  mass  had  a*  place  in  the  orig- 
inal   or   not,  or  even  in  the   Vulgate,   it   should 
stand  forth  conspicuous  in  his  translation,   so  that 
no  person  could  mistake  it.     The  reader  will  not 
be  surprised  to  learn,  that  he  was  a  controvertist 
by  profession,  as  appears  from  his  addition  in  the 
title   of  his  book,  "  Docteur  en  Theologie,  Predi- 
"  cateur  et  Lecteur  du-  Roi  pour  les  Controverses, 
"  Depute  par^Nosseigneurs  du  Clerge,  pour  ecrire 
"  sur  icelles."     And  to  show  of  what  consequence 
he  thought  these  particulars  were  to   qualify  him 
as  a  translator,  he  observes   in  the   preface  ^^  that 
"  the  quality  of  holy  writ  well  deserves,  on  sever- 
"  al  important  accounts,  that  its  translators  should 
"  be    doctors    in    theology,    and   especially    well 
"  versed  in  controversies."     Simon's   observation 
on   this  sentiment,   merits   our  utmost  attention : 
"  It  is  true,"   says  he  ^^  "  that  it  were  to  be  wish- 
"  ed  that  those  who   meddle  with  translating  the 
"  Bible,  were  learned  in  theology  ;  but  it  should 
"  be  another  sort  of  theology  than  the  controver- 

22  Diss.  X.  Part  V.  §  5,  6.  9. 

23  La  qualite  de  I'Ecriture  sainte  merite  bien  aussi  pour  di- 
vers chefs  que  ses  traducteurs  soient  docteurs  en  theologie,  et 
bien  versez  specialement  aux  controverses.     Ibid. 

^^  II  est  vrai  qu'il  seroit  a  desirer  que  ceux  qui  se  melent 
de  traduire  la  bible  fussent  s^avans  dans  la  theologie  :  mais  ce 


266  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  sial ;  for  it  frequently  happens,  that  controvertists 
"  discover  in  the  Bible  things  not  in  it,  and  that 
"  they  limit  the  significations  of  the  words  by 
"  their  own  ideas." 

§  13.  But,  to  return  to  the  detection  I  have 
attempted  of  Simon's  partiality  as  a  critic,  and  of 
tlie  contradictory  arguments  in  which  he  is  often 
involved  by,  it ;  we  should  think  him  sometimes 
as  much  attached  to  the  letter,  and  even  to  the 
arrangement  of  the  words  in  the  original,  as  any 
devotee  of  the  synagogue  ;  and  at  other  times 
disposed  to  allow  great  freedoms  in  both  res- 
pects. When  we  examine  into  the  reason  of 
this  inconsistency,  w^e  always  find  that  the  former 
is  a  prelude  to  the  defence  of  the  Vulgate  in 
general,  or  of  some  obscure  and  barbarous  ex- 
pression in  that  version  :  the  latter  is  often,  but 
not  always,  in  vindication  of  something  in  the 
Vulgate,  expressed  more  freely  than  perhaps  was 
expedient,  or,  at  least,  necessary  ;  for  there  are 
great  inequalities  in  that  translation.  I  say,  in 
this  case,  often^  but  not  always  ;  because,  as  was 
hinted  before,  when  there  is  no  scope  for  party- 
attachment,  his  own  good  sense  determines  him 
to  prefer  those  who  keep  close  to  the  meaning, 
before  those  who  keep  close  to  the  letter. 

doit  etre  une  autre  theologie  que  celle  qui  regarde  la  contro- 
verse  ;  car  il  arrive  souvent  que  les  controversistes  voyent  dans 
la  bible  des  choses  qui  n'y  sont  point,  et  qu'ils  en  Jimitent  quel- 
quefois  les  mots  selon  leurs  idees.  Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du 
N.  T.  ch.  xxxi. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  267 

"  It  flows,"  says  he  ^^  "  from  want  of  respect 
"  for  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  to  transpose  the 
"  order  of  their  words,  under  pretence  that  this 
"  transposition  forms  a  clearer  and  more  natural 
*'  sense.  This  may  properly  be  remarked,  but  it 
"  is  not  allowable  to  make  such  a  change  in  the 
"text."  Again  ^^:  "People  of  sense  will  prefer 
"  the  barbarism  of  the  ancient  Latin  edition  to 
"  the  politeness  of  Erasmus,  because  it  is  no 
"  fault,  in  an  interpreter  of  Scripture,  to  follow 
"  closely  his  original,  and  to  exhibit  even  its 
"  transpositions  of  words.  If  the  interpreter  of 
"the  church  does  not  employ  Latin  terms  suffi- 
"  ciently  pure,*it  is  because  he  is  determined  to 
"  render  faithfully  the  words  of  his  original.  It  is 
"  easy  to  remedy,  by  short  notes,  such  pretended 
"  faults." 

The  preceding  observations  and  reasoning  he 
has  himself  answered  in  another  place,  in  a  way 

^5  Ce  n'est  pas  aussi  avoir  assez  de  respect  pour  les  ecrits 
des  apotres,  que  de  transposer  Tordre  des  mots  sous  pretexte 
que  cette  transposition  forme  un  sens  plus  net  et  plus  natural. 
II  est  bon  de  le  remarquer ;  mais  il  n'est  pas  permis  de  faire 
ce  changement  dans  le  texte.  Hist.  Crit.  des.  Coma's  du  N.  T. 
ch.  Ix. 

26  Les  gens  de  bon  sens  prefereront  la  barbarie  de  I'ancienne 
edition  Latine  a  la  politesse  d'Erasme,  parceque  ce  n'est  pas  un 
defaut  dans  un  interprete  de  PEcriture  de  suivre  fidelement 
son  original,  et  d'en  representer  jusqu-aux  byperbates.  Si 
Tinterprete  de  I'eglise  ne  s'explique  pas  en  des  terms  Latins 
assez  purs,  c'est  qu'il  s'est  attache  a  rendre  fidelement  les  mcts 
de  son  original.  II  est  aise  de  remedicr  a  ces  pretendus  de- 
fauts  par  des  petites  notes. 


268  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

that  is  quite  satisfactory.  "  A  translator  of  Scrip- 
"  ture,"  says  he  ^\  "  ought  to  take  care  not  to  attach 
"  himself  entirely  to  the  order  of  the  words  in 
"  the  original ;  otherwise,  it  will  be  impossible 
"  for  him  to  avoid  falling  into  ambiguities ;  be- 
"  cause  the  languages  do  not  accord  with  each 
"  other  in  every  thing."  Again  ^^ :  "A  translator 
"  ought  not  simply  to  count  the  words ;  but  he 
"  ought,  besides,  to  examine  in  what  manner  they 
"  may  be  joined  together,  so  as  to  form  a  good 
"  meaning  ;  otherwise  his  translation  will  be  puer- 
"  ile  and  ridiculous."  In  another  place  he  is  still 
more  indulgent ^^:  "One  ought,  doubtless,  to 
"  consider  the  difference  of  the  languages  :  our 
"  manners  and  our  expressions  do  not  suit  those 

27  Un  traducteur  de  I'Ecriture  doit  prendre  garde  a  ne  s''at- 
tacjier  pas  entierement  a  Tordre  des  mots  qui  est  dans  I'origin* 
al  ;  autrement  il  sera  impossible  qu'il  ne  tombe  dans  des  equiv-. 
oques,  parce  que  les  largues  ne  se  rapportent  pas  en  tout  les 
unes  aux  autres.     Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  III.  ch.  ii. 

^  Un  traducteur  ne  doit  pas  compter  simplement  les  mots ; 
mais  il  doit  de-plus  examiner,  de  quelle  maniere  on  les  peut 
joindre  ensemble  pour  former  un  bon  sens  ;  autrement  sa  tra- 
duction sera  puerile  et  ridicule.  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II. 
ch.  XX. 

^^  On  doit  h  la  ver't'^  considerer  la  difference  de"  langues,  nos 
manieres  et  nos  expressions  ne  s'accordant  point  avec  celles  des 
anciens  peuples  d'Orient.  Sur  ce  pied-la  je  conviens,  avec  le 
P.  Amelote,  qu^il  n'a  pus  ete  necessaire  qu'il  employat  la  con- 
jonction  et  dans  tous  les  endroits  ou  elle  se  trouve  dans  le 
Nouveau  Testament,  parce  que  cette  repetition  noqs  cheque, 
aussi  bien  que  ccs  autres  particules,  vnila^  donc^  or,  parce  qxie. 
Je  suis  m' me  persua  It;  qu'il  en  a  pu  substituer  d'autres  en  leur 
place.     Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxxiii. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  269 

"  of  the  ancient  Orientals.  For  this  reason,  I 
"  agree  with  Father  Amelote,  that  it  was  not  ne- 
"  cessary  that  he  should  employ  the  conjunction 
"  and  in  all  the  places  where  it  is  found  in  the 
"  New  Testament,  because  this*  repetition  shocks 
"  us  ;  as  do  also  these  other  particles,  behold^ 
"  noiv^  then,  because.  I  am  convinced  that  Ame- 
"  lote  did  right  in  substituting  others  in  their 
"  stead." 

If  it  should  be  asked,  Why  does  not  Simon  en- 
join rather,  in  those  places,  to  trace  the  letter, 
at  all  hazards,  in  the  text,  and  recur  to  the  margin, 
his  never-failipg  resource  on  other  occasions,  for 
what  regards  the  meaning  ?  I  know  no  pertinent 
answer  that  can  be  given,  unless  that,  in  the 
places  just  now  quoted,  he  is  not  engaged  in  de- 
fending the  obscurities,  and  even  the  nonsense,  of 
the  Vulgate,  against  the  plain  sense  of  other  ver- 
sions. 

§  14.  To  those  above  cited,  I  shall  add  but  a 
few  other  specimens.  "  It  is,"  says  he  '°,  "  much 
"  more  proper,  in  a  translation  of  the  sacred  books 
"  into  the  vulgar  tongue,  to  attach  one's  self,  as 
"  much  as  possible,  to  the  letter,  than  to  give 
"  meanings   too    free   in   quitting   it."      Again  ^^ : 

^°  II  est  bien  plus  a  propos  dans  une  traduction  des  livres 
sacres  en  langue  vulgaire,  de  s'atlacher  a  la  lettre  autant  qu'il 
est  possible,  que  de  donner  des  sens  trop  libres  en  la  quittant. 
Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxxv. 

^1  On  doit  avoir  ce  respect  pour  les  livres  sacres  qui  ne  peu- 
vent  etre  traduits  trop  a  la  lettre,  pourveu  qu'on  se   fasse  en- 
tendre.    Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxiv. 
VOL.  n.  34 


270  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  This  respect  is  due  to  the  sacred  books,  which 
"  cannot  be  too  literally  interpreted,  provided 
"  they  be  made  intelligible."  This  sentiment 
appears  moderate,  on  a  general  view  ;  yet,  when 
applied  to  particular  cases,  it  will  not  be  found  to 
be  that  author's  sentiment.  And,  what  may  be 
thought  more  extraordinary,  this  rule  of  his  will  be 
found  to  require,  when  judged  by  his  own  criti- 
cisms, both  too  much,  and  too  little. 

First,  it  requires  too  much ;  because  it  implies 
that  we  are  never  to  forsake  the  letter,  unless 
when,  by  adhering  to  it,  the  expression  might  be 
rendered  unintelligible.  Yet,  in  a  quotation  lately 
given  from  that  author,  he  admits,  that  the  parti- 
cles and,  behold,  now,  then,  because,  may  be  either 
omitted  or  changed,  and  that  not  on  account  of 
their  hurting  the  sense,  which  they  rarely  do,  but 
expressly,  because  the  frequent  recurrence  of 
such  words  shocks  us,  that  is,  offends,  our  ears. 
An  additional  evidence  of  the  same  thing  is,  the 
exception  he  takes  to  Munster's  translation, 
which  he  declares  to  be  too  literal,  and  conse- 
quently rude,  though,  at  the  same  time,  he  ac- 
knowledges it  to  be  sufficiently  intelligible  ^^ 
The  sacred  books,  then,  may  be  too  literally  in- 
terpreted, though  they  be  made  intelligible.  As- 
sertions more  manifestly  contradictory  it  is  im- 
possible to  conceive. 


32  Quoique  sa  version  soit  assez  intelligible,  elle  a  neanmoins 
quelque  chose  tie  rude,  parce  qu'elle  suit  trop  la  lettre  du  texte 
Ebreu.     Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II.  ch.  xxi. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  271 

Secondly,  the  rule  he  has  given  us  requires  too 
little  ;  because  it  evidently  implies  that  the  letter 
ought  to  be  deserted,  when  to  do  so  is  necessary 
for  expressing  the  sense  perspicuously.  Now,  if 
that  had  been  uniformly  our  critic's  opinion,  we 
should  never  have  had  so  many  recommendations 
of  the  margin  for  correcting  the  ambiguities,  false 
meanings,  and  no  meanings,  which  a  rigorous  ad- 
herence to  the  letter  had  brought  into  the  text  of 
the  Vulgate,  and  which  he  will  not  permit  to  be 
changed  in  other  versions. 

§  15.  I  HAVE  already  given  it  as  my  opinion, 
that  Father  Simon's  sentiments  on  this  subject, 
when  unbiassed  by  any  special  purpose,  were  ra- 
tional and  liberal.  I  have  given  some  evidences 
of  this,  and  intend  here  to  add  a  few  more. 
Speaking  of  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, by  Aquila  the  Jew,  he  says  ^^  "  One  can- 
"  not  excuse  this  interpreter's  vicious  affectation 
"  (which  St.  Jerom  has  named  xaxo^r^Xia,  or  ridicu- 
"  Ions  zeal,)  in  translating  every  word  of  his  text 
"  entirely  by  the  letter,  and  in  so  rigid  a  manner, 
"  as  to  render  his  version  altogether  barbarous." 
Again  ^^  :     "  The     Sevent}^,    who    translate    the 

^^  On  ne  peut  pas  excuser  cet  interprete  d'une  affectation 
•vicieuse  (que  St.  Jerome  a  nomme  xaxo^rjXcav,  ou  zele  ridi- 
cule) d'autant  qu'il  a  traduit  chaque  mot  de  son  texte  entiere- 
ment  a  la  lettre,  et  d'une  maniere  si  rigoureuse,  que  cela 
a  rendu  sa  version  tout-a-fait  barbare.  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T. 
liv.  II. 

3-^  Les  Septante  qui  traduisent  souvent  I'Ebreu  trop  a  la 
lettre,  et   queiquefois  mime  sans  preadre  garde   au  sens,  ue 


272  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  Hebrew  often  too  literally,  and  sometimes  even 
"  without  attending  to  the  sense,  do  not  always 
"  exactly  hit  the  meaning ;  and  they  render 
"  themselves  obscure,  by  an  excessive  attach- 
"  ment  to  the  letter."  Of  Arias'  translation  he 
says  ^^ :  "  It  is  true,  that  this  version  may  be  use- 
"  ful  to  those  who  are  learning  Hebrev/,  because 
"  it  renders  the  Hebrew  word  for  word,  accord- 
"  ing  to  the  grammatical  sense ;  but  I  do  not  think 
"  that  one  ought  therefore  to  give  Arias  Montanus 
"  the  character  of  a  most  faithful  interpreter ; 
"  on  the  contrary,  one  will  do  him  much  more 
"  justice,  in  naming  him  a  most  trifling  inter- 
"  preterm 

Agreeably  to  this  more  enlarged,  and,  indeed, 
more  accurate  way  of  thinking,  the  critic  did  not 
hesitate  to  pronounce  this  expression  of  Munster : 
Fructijicate  et  augescite,  et  implete  aquas  infretis, 
much  inferior  to  that  of  the  Vulgate,  Crescite  et 
rmdtiplicamini,  et  implete  aquas  maris^^.  I  am 
of  the  same  opinion  as  to  the  passages  compared, 
though  I  have  no  partiality  to  the  Vulgate.     Yet, 

font  pas  toujours  un  choix  exact  du  veritable  sens,  et  ils  se 
rendent  obscurs,  pour  s'attachcr  trop  a  la  lettre.  Hist.  Crit. 
du  V.  T.  liv.  11.  ch.  xiii. 

85  II  est  vrai  que  cette  version  peut  etre  utile  a  ceux  qui 
veulent  apprendre  la  langue  Ebraique,  parce  qu'elle  rend 
I'Hebreu  mot  pour  mot,  et  selon  le  sens  grammatical :  mais  je 
ne  crois  pas  qu'on  doive  donner  pour  cela  a  Arias  Montanus 
la  qualite  de  fidissimus  interpres :  au  contraire,  oa  lui  fera 
beaucoup  plus  de  justice,  en  le  nommant  meptissimus  interpres. 
Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II.  ch.  xx. 

S6  Gen.  i.  22.  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  liv.  II.  ch.  xxi. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  273 

by  Simon's  rule,  above  quoted,  Munster's  version 
here  ought  to  be  preferred.  It  is  equally  intelligi- 
ble, and  more  literal.  Nor  is  the  word  fructificate 
more  exceptionable  in  point  of  Latinity,  than 
many  words  in  the  Vulgate  which  he  strenuously 
defends  ;  accusing  those  who  object  to  them,  of 
an  excess  of  delicac}^,  but  ill  suited  to  the  sub- 
ject. His  friend,  the  canon  of  Ely,  if  it  had  been 
a  term  of  the  ancient  interpreter,  would  have  told 
us  boldly,  and  in  my  opinion,  with  better  reason 
than  when  he  so  expressed  himself,  Parum  for- 
tasse  elegaiiter  verbum  ^1^  pheru,  sic  reddidit  ; 
sed  apposite^  ut  qui  maxime.  The  same  fault,  of 
being  too  literal,  and  sometimes  tracing  etymol- 
ogies, he  finds  in  Beza.  "  What  has  often  de- 
"  ceived  Beza,"  says  he^^  "  and  the  other  trans- 
"  lators  of  Geneva,  is  their  thinking  to  render 
"  the  Greek  more  literally,  by  attaching  them- 
"  selves  to  express  etymologies.  They  have  not 
"  considered  that  it  is  proper  only  for  school-boys 
"  to  translate  in  this  manner."  To  these  let  me 
add  the  testimony  of  his  apologist,  Hieronymus 
Le   Camus ^^:  "When  they  render  the  Hebrew, 

3?  Ce  qui  a  souvent  trompe  Beze  et  les  autres  traducteurs 
de  Geneve,  c'est  qu'ils  ont  cru  rendre  les  mots  Grecs  plus  a 
la  lettre,  s'ils  s'attachoient  a  exprimer  jusqu'aux  etymologies. 
lis  n'ont  pas  considere  qu'il  n'y  a  que  des  ecoliers  qui  soient 
capables  de  traduire  de  cette  maniere.  Hist.  Crit.  des  Ver- 
sions du  N.  T.  ch.  xxxvi. 

3S  Quando  verba  Ebraica  Ita  reddunt,  ut  verbum  de  verbo 
exprimant,  minus  Graece  loquuntur ;  et  hoc  Simonius  vocavit 
xay.o^r,lim\    seu    pravam    affectationem    Judaeis    interprelibus 


274  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  word  for  word,  they  do  not  speak  pure  Greek. 
"  This  Simon  calls  ycaxo^i^Xia,  or  a  vicious  affecta- 
"  tion  familiar  to  Jewish  interpreters,  and  occurring 
"  sometimes  in  the  Septuagint.  Thus,  when  they 
"  turn  some  prepositions  from  Hebrew  into  Greek, 
"  they  retain  the  Hebrew  idiom  ;  for  example,  in 
"  Hebrew,  the  comparative  is  expressed  by  the 
"  preposition  min,  which  the  Seventy,  and  Aquila, 
"  often  render  ano,  from  ;  in  which  case,  this 
"  xaxo^T^Xia  darkens  the  sense."  Was  there  none 
of  this  xaxo^i^ha  then,  in  using  the  preposition  in 
(where  the  idiom  of  the  Latin,  and  the  sense  of 
the,  expression,  required  cum,)  in  the  phrase  in 
virtute  of  the  Vulgate  ^^  ? 

§  16.  But  it  is  certain  that,  whatever  were  his 
general  sentiments  on  the  subject,  he  no  sooner 
descended  to  particular  instances,  than  he  patron- 
ized the  free,  or  the  literal,  manner,  just  as  the 
one,  or  the  other,  had  been  followed  by  the  Vul^ 
gate.  If  he  had  said,  in  so  many  words,  that  the 
example  of  the  ancient  interpreter  was  a  sufficient 
reason,  the  question  would  have  been  more  sim- 

familiarem,  quaB  etiam  interdum  in  septuaginta  interpretibus 
occurrit.  Sic  dum  quasdam  preposltiones  ex  Ebraeo  faciunt 
Graecas,  retinent  dictionem  Ebraicam  :  exempli  causa,  sermo 
Ebraicus  comparativum  exprimit  per  min  quod  70  cum  Aquila 
baud  infrequenter  reddunt  aiio  ab.  Tunc  ista  xaxo^r,Xia  sen- 
sum  efficit  obscurum.  Hier.  le  Cam.  De  Responsione  Vossii, 
edit.  Edinb.  1685,  p.  50. 

*^  Rom.  i,  4.     See  §  7.  of  this  Dissertation. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  275 

pie.  But,  whatever  weight  this  sentiment  might 
have  had  with  Romanists,  to  whom  that  version 
serves  as  a  standard,  it  could  not  surely  have  had 
influence  enough  on  Protestants,  to  make  them 
sacrifice  what  they  judged  to  be  the  sense  of  the 
unerring  Spirit,  in  deference  to  the  discovered 
mistakes  of  a  fallible  translator.  It  was,  there- 
fore, of  importance  to  Father  Simon,  for  the  con- 
viction of  his  Protestant  readers,  to  show,  from 
the  authentic  principles  of  criticism,  that,  in  every 
thing  material,  the  old  translator  had  judged  bet- 
ter than  any  of  the  later  interpreters  :  and,  in 
prosecution  of^-this  momentous  point,  I  have  given 
a  specimen  of  his  wonderful  versatility  in  argu- 
ing. That  I  may  not  be  misunderstood,  I  must  at 
the  same  time  add,  that  he  does  not  carry  his 
partiality  so  far,  as  to  refuse  acknowledging,  in 
the  Vulgate,  a  few  slips  of  no  consequence,  and 
no  wise  affecting  the  sense.  To  have  acted  other- 
wise, would  have  been  too  inartificial  in  that  critic, 
as  it  would  have  exposed  the  great  object  of  his 
treatise  too  much.  Some  concessions  it  was 
necessary  that  he  should  employ,  as  an  expedient 
for  gaining  the  acquiescence  of  his  readers  in 
points  incomparably  more  important. 


§  17.  I  SHALL  now  finish  what  I  have  to  remark 
upon  his  criticisms,  with  some  reflections  on  those 
words  which,  in  consequence  of  the  frequency  of 
their  occurrence,  both  in  the  «Vulgate,  arid  in 
ancient    ecclesiastical    writers,    he    considers    as 


276  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

consecrated,  and  as  therefore  entitled  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  other  words,  which  are  equally  signifi- 
cant, but  have  not  had  the  same  advantage  of 
antiquity,  and  theological  use.  I  readily  admit 
the  title  claimed  in  behalf  of  such  words,  when 
they  convey  exactly  the  idea  denoted  by  the  orig- 
inal terms,  and  are  neither  obscure  nor  am- 
biguous :  nay,  I  do  not  object  even  to  their 
ambiguity,  when  the  same  ambiguity  is  in  the 
original  term.  And  this  is,  in  my  opinion,  the 
utmost  which  ought  to  be  either  demanded  on 
one  side,  or  yielded  on  the  other.  If,  on  account 
of  the  usage  of  any  former  interpreter,  I  admit 
words  which  convey  not  the  same  idea  with  the 
original,  or  which  convey  it  darkly,  or  which  con- 
vey also  other  ideas  that  may  be  mistaken  for  the 
true,  or  confounded  with  it ;  I  make  a  sacrifice  of 
the  truths  of  the  Spirit,  that  I  may  pay  a  vain 
compliment  to  antiquity,  in  adopting  its  phraseol- 
ogy, even  when  it  may  mislead.  That  the  words 
themselves  be  equally  plain  and  pertinent  with 
any  other  words  which  might  occur,  appears  to 
me  so  reasonable  a  limitation  to  the ,  preference 
granted  in  favour  of  those  used  in  any  former  ver- 
sion, that,  if  the  bare  stating  of  the  matter,  as  is 
done  above,  be  not  sufficient  ;  I  do  not  know  any 
topic  by  Avhich  I  could  convince  persons  who  are 
of  a  different  opinion.  But,  perhaps,  it  will  an- 
swer better  to  descend  to  particulars.  It  is  only 
thus  a  person  can  be  assured  of  making  Jiimself 
thoroughly  understood. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  277 

§  18.  Simon,  speaking  of  the  Lutheran  and  Port 
Royal  versions,  says  ^",  "  Neither  of  them  retains 
"  almost  any  thing  of  that  venerable  and  quite 
"  divine  appearance  which  Scripture  has  in  the 
"  original  languages.  One  does  not  find,  in  these 
"  versions,  that  simplicity  of  style  which  is  dif- 
"  fused  through  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and 
"  Evangelists.  This  appears  from  the  first  words 
"  of  the  translation  of  Mons,  where  we  read,  La 
"  genealogie  dc  Jesus  Christ  :  in  effect,  the  tAvo 
"•  Latin  words,  liber  generationis,  answering  to 
"  two  others  in  the  Greek,  signify  genealogy. 
"  But  an  interpreter,  who  chooses  to  preserve  that 
"  simple  air  which  the  sacred  books  have  in  the 
"  original  tongues,  will  rather  translate,  simply, 
**  the  book  of  the  generation.  He  will  remark,  at 
"  the  same  time,  on  the  margin,  that  in  the  style 
"  of   the   Bible,    one  calls   /3t/3Aos  /svsasas,  what 

"^0  Les  uns  et  les  autres  ne  retiennent  presque  rien  de  cet  air 
venerable  et  tout  divin  que  I'Ecriture  a  dans  les  langues  origi- 
nales.  On  n'y  trouve  point  cette  simplicite  de  stile  qui  est 
repandue  dans  les  ecrits  des  Evangelistes  et  des  Apotres. — 
Cela  paroit  des  les  premiers  mots  de  la  traduction  de  Mons, 
ou  nous  lisons,  la  genealogie  de  Jesus  Christ  :  et  en  elTet  ces 
deux  mots  Latins,  liber  generationis^  qui  repondent  a  deux 
autres  qui  sont  dans  le  Grec,  signitient  genealogie.  Mais  un 
interprete  qui  voudra  con'server  cet  air  simple  que  les  livres 
sacres  ont  dans  les  langues  originales,  aimera  mieux  traduire 
simplement  le  livre  de  la  generation.  II  remarquera  en 
meme  tems  a  la  marge,  que  dans  le  stile  de  la  bible  on 
appelle  ^c^Xos  yeveCaws  ce  que  les  Grecs  nomment  yarealoyLa., 
genealogie  ;  que  les  Apotres  ont  pris  cette  expression  de 
la  version  Grecque  des  Septante,  qui  ont  ainsi  interprete  le 
sepher-toldoth  des  Ebreux.  Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T. 
ch.  XXXV. 

VOL.  n.  35 


278  PRELIMINARY  [d.  x. 

"  the  Greeks  name  ysvaakoyia^  genealogy  ;  that 
"  the  Apostles  have  adopted  this  expression  from 
"  the  Greek  version  of  the  Seventy,  who  have  thus 
"  expressed  the  sepher-toldoth  of  the  Hebrews." 

Now  it  may  be  observed,  that  Simon  himself 
speaks  of  it  as  unquestionable,  that  genealogie 
expresses  the  meaning.  But  he  objects,  that  it 
is  not  so  simple  an  expression  as  le  livre  de  la 
generation.  If  he  had  called  it  too  learned  a 
term  for  ushering  in  so  plain  a  narrative  as  the 
Gospel,  I  should  have  thought  the  objection  plau- 
sible. But  when  he  speaks  of  simplicity,  I  am 
afraid  that  he  has  some  meaning  to  that  word 
which  I  am  not  acquainted  with.  I  should  never 
imagine,  that  of  different  ways  of  expressing  the 
same  idea,  supposing  the  expressions  in  other 
respects  equal,  that  should  be  accounted  the  least 
simple,  which  is  in  the  fewest  words.  Or,  if  the 
phrase,  le  livre  de  la  generation^  do  not  derive  its 
superior  simplicity  from  its  being  more  complex  ; 
does  it  derive  that  quality  from  its  being  more 
obscure  than  la  genealogie  f  I  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  consider  plainness,  rather  than,  obscurity, 
as  characteristic  of  simplicity.  And,  indeed,  the 
chief  fault  I  find  in  the  former  of  these  expres- 
sions, is  its  obscurity.  The  w^ord  livre  is  here 
used  in  a  sense  which  it  never  has  in  French  ;  as 
much  may  be  said  of  the  word  generation  :  and 
consequently  the  phrase  does  not  convey  intelligi- 
bly the  idea  of  the  writer,  or,  indeed,  any  idea 
whatever.  Our  author's  answer  to  this  is  :  '  Give 
'  the  sense  on  the  margin  ;'  that  is,  in  other  words, 
give  the  etymology  of  the  phrase  in  the  text,  and 


n 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  279 

the  translation  in  the  margin.  Is  not  this  the  very 
method  taken  by  Arias  Montanus,  whom  our  critic 
has,  nevertheless,  treated  very  contemptuously  ? 
Is  not  this  hunting  after  etymological  significa- 
tions, the  very  thing  he  condemns  so  strongly 
in  Beza,  and  some  other  modern  interpreters? 
And  where  is  the  difference,  whether  the  expres- 
sion to  be  explained,  be  a  phrase  or  a  compound 
word  :  for  a  compound  word  is  no  other  than  a 
contracted  phrase  ?  reveaXoyia,  is  but  two  words, 
yBvsoLs  Xoyog^  contracted  into  one.  This  our 
author  admits  to  be  a  just  (and,  I  add,  a  literal) 
version  of  sepher  toldoth.  Now,  if  the  Evangel- 
ist had  employed  this,  instead  of  /3t/3Aos  yEvs- 
(fscos,  Simon  would  have  had  the  same  reason 
for  insisting  that  it  ought  to  be  rendered,  in 
the  text,  la  ^role  %e  la  generation^  and  that  the 
meaning  should  be  explained  in  the  margin. 

Sometimes,  indeed,  this  way  of  interpreting, 
by  tracing  the  etymology,  is  proper,  because 
sometimes  it  conveys  the  sense  with  sufficient 
perspicuity,  and  with  as  much  brevity  as  the 
language  admits  :  but  this  is  not  the  case  always. 
Every  body  will  allow,  that  (ptXridovot  could  not 
be  more  justly  rendered  than  lovers  of  pleasure, 
or  (piXod'eoL,  than  lovers  of  God.  But  avycocpavTai 
is  much  better  translated  false  accusers,  than 
informers  concerning  figs  ;  (piXoaocpoi,  philoso- 
phers, than  lovers  of  wisdom.  The  apostolical 
admonition  ^^,     BXensxE     ^r^     tis    'vjxas     sdiac    'o 

"J  Col.  ii.  8. 


^ 


280  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

avXayaycdv  Slcx.  T?^g  (piXoGocpias,  is  certainly  better 
rendered,  Beware  lest  any  man  seduce  you 
through  philosophy^  than,  Beware  lest  any  man 
carry  you  off  a  prey,  through  the  love  of  wisdom ; 
which,  though  it  traces  the  letter,  does  not  give 
the  sense.  Yet,  in  these  cases,  the  terms  may  be 
pertinently  explained  in  the  margin,  as  well  as  in 
that  mentioned  by  the  critic.  Now,  to  qualify  one 
for  the  office  of  interpreter,  it  is  requisite  that  he 
be  capable  of  giving  the  received  use  of  the 
phrases,  as  well  as  of  the  compound  words,  and 
of  the  compound  words,  as  well  as  of  the  simple 
words. 

There  are  cases  in  which  I  have  acknowledged, 
that  recourse  to  the  margin  is  necessary  ;  but 
such  cases  are  totally  different  from  the  present, 
as  will  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  one  who 
has  attended  to  what  has  been  said  ^^  on  that 
subject.  But  the  method,  so  often  recommended 
by  Simon,  is,  in  my  apprehension,  the  most 
bungling  imaginable.  It  is  unnaturally  to  disjoin 
two  essential  parts  of  the  translator's  business, 
the  interpretation  of  words,  and  the  interpretation 
of  idioms,  or  phrases,  alloting  the  text,  or  body 
of  the  book,  for  the  one,  and  reserving  the  mar- 
gin for  the  other.  In  consequence  of  whicli, 
the  text  will  be  often  no  better  than  a  collection 
of  riddles,  or  what  is  worse,  a  jargon  of  unmean- 
ing words  ;  whilst  that  which  alone  deserves  the 
name  of  interpretation,  will  be  found  in  tlTe  mar- 
gin.    This  naturally  suggests  a  query.     Whether 

42  Diss.  II.  Part  I.  §  5.     Diss.  VIII.  throughout. 


V.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  281 

the  text  might  not  as  well  be  dispensed  with 
altogether  ;  as  it  would  only  serve  to  interrupt 
a  reader's  progress,  distract  his  attention,  and 
divide  his  thoughts  ?  To  this  let  me  add  another 
query,  Whether  there  be  any*  thing  in  the  trans- 
lations of  Aquila,  Malvenda,  Arias  Montanus, 
Pagnin,  and  Beza  (for  they  all  incur  this  stigma 
from  our  author,  when  they  translate  more  lit- 
erally than  the  Vulgate,)  which  better  deserves 
the  denomination  of  a  school-boy's  version,  than 
that  which  the  author,  in  this  place,  so  strongly 
patronizes  ? 

§  19.  I  OBSERVED,  that  compound  words  are 
nearly  on  the  same  footing  with  such  phrases 
as  ^i^Xog  yevsasa?.  This  holds  more  manifestly 
in  Hebrew,  where  the  nouns  which  aje  said,  by 
their  grammarians,  to  be  in  statu  constructor  are, 
in  effect,  compound  terms.  To  combine  them 
the  more  easily,  a  change  is,  in  certain  cases, 
made  on  the  letters  of  the  word  which  we  should 
call  the  governing  word  ;  and  when  there  is  no 
change  in  the  letters,  there  is  often,  by  the  Ma- 
soretic  reading,  a  change  in  the  vowel-points  to 
facilitate  the  pronunciation  of  them  as  one  word. 
In  this  way,  sepher-toldoth  is  as  truly  one  com-  ^ 
pound  word  in  Hebrew,  as  yevsaXoyia  is  in  Greek, 
and  of  the  same  signification.  There  is  a  similar 
idiom  in  the  French  language,  for  supplying 
names,  by  v/hat  may  be  termed,  indifferently, 
phrases,  or  compound  nouns.  Such  are,  gens 
d'armes,  jet  d'eau,  aide  de  camp.  We  should 
think   a   translator  had   much   of  the  Tcaxo^r^ha, 


282  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

the  vicious  affectation  so  oft  above  mentioned, 
who  should  render  them  into  English,  people  of 
arms^  cast  of  ivater,  help  of  field.  Another  evi- 
dence that  this  may  justly  be  regarded  as  a  kind 
of  composition  in  Hebrew,  is  that,  when  there  is 
occasion  for  the  affix  pronouns,  though  their  con- 
nection be  in  strictness  with  the  first  of  the  two 
terms,  they  are  annexed  to  the  second,  which 
would  be  utterly  repugnant  to  their  syntax,  if 
both  were  not  considered  as  making  but  one 
word,  and,  consequently,  as  not  admitting  the 
insertion  of  a  pronoun  between  them.  Thus, 
what  is  rendered^,  his  idols  of  silve7%  and  his 
idols  of  gold ;  if  the  two  nouns  in  each  phrase 
were  not  conceived  as  combined  into  one  com- 
pound term,  ought  to  be  translated,  idols  of  his 
silver,  and  idols  of  his  gold,  13D3  ^T^K  nx  1^(1? 
*'!' v.J<  DNI,  which  is  not  according  to  the  genius 
of  that  language,  for  the  affix  pronouns  are  never 
transposed. 

But  when  the  words  are  considered  in  this 
(which  I  think  is  the  true)  light,  as  one  compound 
name,  there  is  the  same  reason  for  rendering  them 
as  our  interpreters  have  done,  that  there  would 
be  to  render  "^7/  cpiXavd-gania  avzov,  his  love  to 
men,  and  not  love  to  his  men.  In  the  same  man- 
ner, ^C^Tf]  CDt^  shem  kodshi,  is  7ny  holy  name, 
'>V1T>  "in  har  kodshi,  my  holy  mountain,  and  *tJ^"lp 
jOJi^  shemen  kodshi,  my  holy  oil.  These,  if  we 
should  follow  the  letter  in  translating  ttiem,  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  trace  the  form  of  the 

•13  Isaiah,  ii.  20. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  283 

composition,  must  be,  the  name  of  my  holiness^ 
the  motmtaiu  of  my  holiness,  and  the  oil  of  my 
holiness.  In  translating  ^pl"^  ^'17^i^^  elohe  tsidkiy 
rendered,  in  the  common  version,  O  God  of  my 
righteousness,  I  see  no  occasion-,  Avith  Dr.  Taylor, 
to  make  a  stretch  to  find  a  meaning  to  the  word 
answering  to  righteousness  ;  the  word,  agreeably 
to  the  Hebrew  idiom  above  exemplified,  has  there 
manifestly  the  force  of  an  epithet,  and  the  ex- 
pression implies  no  more  than  my  righteous  God, 
In  this  way  *|C^np  D;^^^  gham  kodshecha  (which 
is  exactly  similar,)  translated  in  the  English  Bible, 
lifter  Tremellius,  and  much  in  the  manner  of 
Arias,  the  people  of  thy  holiness,  is  rendered  in  the 
Vulgate,  and  by  Houbigant,  populum  sanctum 
tuum,  thy  holy  people,  and  to  the  same  purpose 
by  Castalio  and  the  translator  of  Zuric.  This 
very  thing,  therefore,  that  the  Seventy  did  not 
render  sepher-toldoth,  ysvEakoyia,  to  which  it  lit- 
erally, and  in  signification,  answers,  but  ^iSXos 
ysv£(j£09,  is  an  example  of  that  xaxoti^Xia,  of  which 
Jerom  justly  accuses  them,  and  which  Simon  nev- 
er fails  to  censure  with  severity,  in  every  transla- 
tion where  he  finds  it,  except  the  Vulgate.  As 
this  phrase,  however,  in  consequence  of  its  intro- 
duction by  these  interpreters,  obtained  a  curren- 
cy among  the  Hellenist  Jews,  and  was  quite 
intelligible  to  them,  being  in  the  national  idiom, 
it  was  proper  in  the  Evangelist,  or  his  translator, 
to  adopt  it.  The  case  was  totall}^  different  with 
those   for  whom   the    Latin   version   was   made, 

^*  Psalm,  iv.  1.  ^^  Isaiah,  Ixiii.  18. 


284  PRELIMINARY  {d.  xi. 

whose  idiom  the  words  liber  generationis,  did  not 
suit,  and  to  whose  ears  they  conveyed  only  un- 
meaning sounds. 

§  20.  I  HAVE  never  seen  Mr.  Simon's  French 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  from  the  Vul- 
gate, but  I  have  an  English  version  of  his  version, 
by  William  Webster,  curate  of  St.  Dunstan's  in 
the  West.  The  English  translator  professes,  in 
his  dedication,  to  have  translated  literally  from  the 
French.  Yet  Matthew's  Gospel  begins  in  this 
manner  :  The  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  Mr. 
Webster  has  taken  the  freedom  to  alter  Simon's 
phrase,  he  has  acted  very  strangely,  as  it  is  hardly 
in  the  power  of  imagination  to  conceive  a  good 
reason  for  turning  that  work  (which  is  itself  but  a 
translation  of  a  translation)  into  English  ;  unless 
to  show,  as  I'learly  as  possible,  that  eminent  critic's 
manner  of  applying  his  own  rules,  and  to  let  us 
into  his  notions  of  the  proper  method  of  translat- 
ing holy  writ.  And  if,  on  the  other  hand,  Simon 
has  actually  rendered  it  in  French,  La  genealogie, 
it  is  no  less  strange  that,  without  assigning  a  reason 
for  his  change  of  opinion,  or  so  much  as  mention- 
ing, in  the  preface,  or  in  a  note,  that  he  had 
changed  it,  he  should  employ  an  expression  which 
he  had,  in  a  work  of  high  reputation,  censured  with 
so  much  severity  in  another  ^'^. 

•*''  I  have,  since  these  Dissertations  were  finis^lied,  been 
fortunate  enough  to  procure  a  copy  of  Simon's  French 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  ;  from  which  I  find  that  his 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  285 

§  21.  Now  if,  from  what  has  been  said,  it  be 
evident,  that  his  own  principles,  explicitly  de- 
clared in  numberless  parts  of  his  book,  as  well  as 
right  reason,  condemn  the  servile  method  of 
tracing  etymologies  in  words  or  phrases  (for 
there  is  no  material  difference  in  the  cases,) 
to  the  manifest  injury  of  perspicuity,  and,  conse- 
quently, of  the  sense ;  I  know  no  tolerable  plea 
which  can  be  advanced  in  favour  of  such  phrases, 
unless  that  to  which  he  often  recurs  in  other 
cases,  consecration  by  long  use.  "  Why,"  he  asks  ^^, 
speaking  of  the  Port  Royal  translation,  "  have 
,^'  they  banishe^   from   this   version   many   words 

English  translator  has  not  misrepresented  him.  Without  any 
apology  either  in  the  preface  or  in  the  notes,  he  adopts  the 
very  expression  which  he  had  in  so  decisive  a  manner  con- 
demned in  the  Gentlemen  of  Port  Royal.  Nay,  so  little  does 
he  value  the  rule  which  he  had  so  often  prescrihed  to  others, 
to  give  a  literal  version  in  the  text,  and  the  meaning  in  the 
margin,  that  in  most  cases,  as  in  the  present,  he  reverses  it ; 
he  gives  the  meaning  in  the  text,  and  the  literal  version  in 
the  margin.  I  think  that,  in  so  doing,  he  judges  much  better  ; 
but,  if  further  experience  produced  this  alteration  in  his  senti- 
ments, it  is  strange  that  he  seems  never  to  have  reflected  that 
he  owed  to  the  public  some  account  of  so  glaring  an  inconsis- 
tency in  his  conduct ;  and  to  those  translators  whose  judgment 
he  had  treated  with  so  little  ceremony,  an  acknowledgment 
of  his  error.  Simon's  translation  is,  upon  the  whole,  a  good 
one,  but  it  will  not  bear  to  be  examined  by  his  own  rules  and 
maxims, 

^7  Pourquoi  a-t-on  banni  plusieurs  mots  qu'un  long  usage 
a  autorizes,  et  qui  ont  ete,  pour  ainsi  dire,  canonises  dans  les 
eglises  d'Occident  ?      Hist.   Crit.    des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch. 

XXXV. 

VOL.  n.  36 


286  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

"  which  long  use  has  authorized,  and  which  have 
"  been,  so  to  speak,  canonized  in  the  Western 
"  churches  ?"  He  does  not,  indeed,  plead  this 
in  defence  of  the  words  liber  generationis,  though, 
in  my  opinion,  the  most  plausible  argument 
he  had  to  offer.  But,  as  it  is  a  principal  topic 
with  him,  to  which  he  often  finds  it  necessary 
to  recur,  it  will  require  a  more  particular  exami- 
nation. 

§  22.  "  Where  we  have,  in  the  Greek,"  says 
he.^^,  ^'  svayj/sXi^ovzai,  and  in  the  Vulgate  evan- 
"  geliccmtiir,  Erasmus  has  translated,  "  Lcetum 
"  evangelii  accipiimt  mmtitim.  He  explains,  by 
"  several  words,  what  might  have  been  rendered 
"  by  one  only,  which  is  not,  indeed,  Latin,  but, 
"  as  the  learned  John  Bois  remarks,  it  is  ancient, 
"  and  is,  besides,  as  current  as  several  other 
"  words  which  ecclesiastic  use  has  rendered 
"  familiar.  He  adds,  in  the  same  place,  that  he 
"  is  not  shocked  with  this  expression  in  our  Vul- 
"  gate,  qui  non  fuerit  scandalizatus,  because  he 
"  is  for  allowing  the  Gospel  to  speak  after  its  own 
"  manner.  Erasmus  has  translated,  Quisquis  non 
^'fuerit  offensus,  which  is  better  Latin."  In  re- 
gard to  the  last  expression,  he  has  a  similar 
remark     in     his    critique     on    the    version     of 

^^  Ou  il  y  a  dans  le  Grec  (Mat.  xi.  5.)  avayye}.L^(rvTai^  et 
dans  la  Vulgate  evangelizantur^  Erasme  a  traduit  IcBtum  Evan- 
gelii accipiunt  nuntium.  II  explique  par  plusieurs  mots  ce  qu'il 
pouvoit  rendre  par  un  seul,  qui  n'est  pas  a  la   verite  Latin, 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  '  287 

Mons.  "  These  words,"  says  he  ^',  "  Si  ocultis 
"  tuus  dexter  scandalizat  te,  the  Gentlemen  of 
"  Port  Royal  have  translated,  Si  voire  ml  droit 
"  vous  est  un  snjet  de  scandale  et  de  chute. 
"  They  say  that  the  word  scandale,  by  itself,  con- 
"  veys  commonly  another  idea,  denoting  that 
"  which  shocks  us,  not  that  which  makes  us  fall. 
"  But  St.  Jerom,  whom  they  pretend  to  imi- 
"  tate,  was  not  so  delicate.  We  should  not,  how- 
"  ever,  have  found  fault  with  their  explaining 
"  the  word  scandale,  scandal,  by  the  word  chute, 
"  fall :  but  this  explanation  ought  to  have  been 
"  in  the  margin,  rather  than  in  the  text  of  the 
"  version." 

§  23.  As  to  what  regards  the  proper  version  of 

mais,  comme  le  docte  Jean  Bois  a  remarque,  il  est  ancien,  et  il 
est  aussi  bien  de  mise  que  plusieurs  autres  mots  auxquels 
I'usage  de  I'eglise  a  donne  cours.  II  ajoute  au  meme  endroit, 
qu'il  n'est  point  choque  de  cette  expression  qui  est  dans  notre 
Vulgate,  qui  non  fuerit  scandalizatus,  parce  qu'il  souffre  volon- 
tiers  que  I'Evangile  parle  a  sa  maniere.  Erasme  a  traduit, 
quisquis  non  fuerit  offensus  ;  ce  qui  est  plus  Latin.  Hist.  Crit. 
des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxii. 

^9  Ces  paroles  (Mat.  v.  29.,)  Si  oculus  tuus  dexter  scandalizat 
te,  Messieurs  de  Port  Royale  ont  traduit  par  celles-ci,  Si  voire 
ceil  droit  vous  est  un  sujet  de  scandale  et  de  chute.  lis  disent  que 
le  mot  de  scandale  tout  seul  donne  d'ordinaire  une  autre  idee, 
et  qu'ils  se  prend  pour  ce  qui  nous  fait  choque,  et  non  pas 
pour  ce  qui  nous  fait  tomber.  Mais  St.  Jerome  qu'ils  preten- 
dent  imiter,  n'a  point  eu  cette  delicatesse.  On  ne  trouve 
pas  neanmoins  mauvais  qu'ils  ayent  explique  le  mot  de 
scandale  par  celui  de  chute  :  mais  cette  explication  devoit  plutot 
etre  a  la  marge,  que  dans  le  texte  de  la  version.  Hist.  Crit, 
des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxxv. 


288  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

the  words  svayyeh^a  and  evayyshov,  I  have   ex- 
plained myself  fully  in  some  former  dissertations^*^, 
and  shall  only  add  here  a  few  things   suggested 
by  the  remarks  above  quoted.     First,  then,  Mr. 
Simon  condemns  it  much  in  a  translator,  to  explain, 
by  several  words,  what  might  have  been  rendered 
by  one  only.     I  condemn  it  no  less  than  he.     But, 
by  the  examples  produced,  one  would  conclude 
that  he  had  meant,  not  tvhat  might  have  been,  but 
ivhat  could  not  have  been,  rendered  by  one  onl}^ ; 
for  evangelizantur  is  not  a  version  of  evayye'kilov- 
rai,  nor  scandalizatus fuerit  of  axavdaXiadi^.     This 
is  merely  to  give  the  Greek  words  something  of 
a  Latin  form,  and  so  evade  translating  them  alto- 
gether.     A   version   composed   on   this   plan,   if, 
without   absurdity,   we    could   call   it   a   version, 
would  be  completely  barbarous  and  unintelligible. 
There  are  a  very  few  cases  wherein  it  is  necessa- 
ry to  retain    the   original  term.      These  I  have 
described  already  ^^      But  neither  of  the  words 
now  mentioned  falls  under  the  description.     And 
common  sense  is  enough  to  satisfy  us,  that  when 
a  word  cannot   be  translated   intelligibly  by  one 
word  only,  the  interpreter  ought  to  employ  more. 
Verba   ponder anda  sunt,  says    Houbigant  ^^  non 
7iumeranda — J^eque  enim  fieri  potest,  lit  dtiarum 
linguarum    paria    semper  verba  paribus  respon- 
deant. 

Secondly,  That  a  word  is  familiar  to  us,  is  no 
evidence  that  we  understand  it,  though  this  cir- 

50  Diss.  V.  Part  II.  Diss.  VI.  Part  V. 

51  Diss.  VIII.  passim.  ^a  Proleg.  Cap.  V.  Art.  III. 


/ 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  289 

cumstance,  its  familiarity,  often  prevents  our  dis- 
covering that  we  do  not  understand  it. 

Thirdly,  Ecclesiastical  use  is  no  security  that 
the  word,  though  it  be  understood,  conveys  to  us 
the  same  idea  which  the  original  term  did  to 
those  to  whom  the  gospels  were  first  promul- 
gated. In  a  former  Dissertation  ^^,  the  fullest 
evidence  has  been  given  that,  in  regard  to  sev- 
eral words,  the  meaning  which  has  been  long 
established  by  ecclesiastic  use,  is  very  different 
from  that  which  they  have  in  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament. 

Fourthly,  TJiat  to  render  the  plain  Greek  words 
(jxavdaXi^o)  and  BvayyeXL^a  into  Latin,  by  the  words 
scandalizo  and  evangelizo,  which  are  not  Latin 
words,  is  so  far  from  allowing  the  Gospel  to  speak 
after  its  own  manner  (as  Bois  calls  it,)  that  it  is,  on 
the  contrary,  giving  it  a  manner  of  speaking  the 
most  different  from  its  own  that  can  be  imagined. 
This  I  intend  soon  to  evince,  even  from  Simon 
himself,  though,  in  the  passage  above  referred  to, 
he  seems  to  have  adopted  the  sentiment  of  the 
English  critic. 

Lastly,  The  argument  implied  in  the  remark, 
that  Jerom  had  not  so  much  delicacy  as  the  trans- 
lators of  Port  Royal,  because  he  did  not  scruple 
to  employ  the  word  scandalizo,  though  not  Latin, 
in  his  Latin  version,  admits  a  twofold  answer. 
The  first  is,  Jerom  did  wrong  in  so  doing.  Simon 
acknowledges  that  he  was  neither  infallible  nor 
inspired ;  he  acknowledges,  further,  that  he  might, 

w  Diss.  IX. 


290  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

and,  in  a  few  instances,  did,  mistake,  and  is,  by 
consequence,  not  implicitly  to  be  followed.  "  It 
"  would  be  wrong,"  says  the  critic,  in  a  passage 
formerly  quoted,  "  to  imitate  the  faults  of  St.  Jerom, 
"  and  to  pay  greater  deference  to  his  authority 
"  than  to  the  truth."  The  second  answer  is,  that 
the  cases  are  not  parallel.  Scandalum  was  not  a 
Latin  word;  consequently,  to  those  who  under- 
stood no  Greek,  it  was  obscure,  or,  if  you  will, 
unintelligible.  This  is  the  worst  that  could  be 
said.  Jerom,  or  whoever  first  introduced  it  into 
the  Latin  version,  had  it  in  his  power  to 
assign  it,  in  a  note,  what  sense  he  pleased. 
But  scandale  was  a  French  word  before  the 
translators  of  Mons  had  a  being ;  and  it  was 
not  in  their  power  to  divert  it  from  the  meaning 
which  general  use  had  given  it  long  before. 
Now^  as  they  justly  observe,  in  their  own  vindi- 
cation, the  import  of  the  French  word  did  not 
coincide  with  that  of  the  original ;  they  were, 
therefore,  by  all  the  rules  of  interpretation,  obliged 
to  adopt  another.  Jerom,  by  adopting  the  word 
scandalum  darkened  the  meaning ;  the}^',  by  using 
the  word  scandale,  would  have  given  a  false 
meaning.  Their  only  fault,  in  my  opinion,  was 
their  admitting  an  improper  word  into  their  ver- 
sion, even  though  coupled  with  another  which  ex- 
presses the  sense. 

§  24.  But,  as  our  author  frequently  recurs  to 
this  topic,  the  consecration  of  such  words  by  long 
use,  it  will  be  proper  to  consider  it  more  narrowly. 
Some  have  gone  further,  on  this  article,  than  .our 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  291 

author  is  willing  to  justify.  "  Sutor,"  says  he  ^^ 
"  pretended,  that  it  was  not  more  allowable  to 
"  make  new  translations  of  the  Bible,  than  to 
"  change  the  style  of  Cicero  into  another.  JYonne 
"  injiiriam  faceret  Tullio^  qui'  ejus  stylum  immu- 
"  tare  vellet  ?  But,  by  the  leave  of  this  Parisian 
"  theologist,"  says  Simon,  "  there  is  a  great  dif- 
"  ference  between  reforming  the  style  of  a  book, 
"  and  making  a  version  of  that  book.  One  may 
"  make  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament  from 
"  the  Greek,  or  from  the  Latin,  without  making 
"  any  change  on  that  Greek  or  that  Latin."  The 
justness  of  this  sentiment  is  self-evident ;  and  it 
is  a  necessary  consequence  from  it,  that  if  the 
words  and  phrases  in  the  version  convey  the  same 
ideas  and  thoughts  to  the  readers,  which  those  of 
the  original  convey,  it  is  a  just  translation,  what- 
ever conformity  or  disconformity  in  sound  and 
etymology  there  may  be  between  its  words  and 
phrases,  and  the  words  and  phrases  of  the  orig- 
inal, or  of  other  translations. 

Of  this  Simon  appears,  on  several  occasions,  to 
be  perfectly  sensible,  insomuch  that  he  has,  on 

*'*  Sutor  pretendoit  qu'il  n'etoit  pas  plus  permis  de  faire  de 
nouvelles  traductions  de  la  Bible,  que  de  changer  le  stile  de 
Ciceron  en  un  autre.  JVonne  injuriam  faceret  Tullio  qtd  ejus 
stylum  immutare  vellet  ?  Mais  n'en  deplaise  a  ce  theolog-ien 
de  Paris,  il  y  a  bien  de  la  difference  entre  reformer  le  stile 
d'un  livre,  et  faire  une  version  de  ce  meme  livre.  On  pent 
faire  une  traduction  de  Nouveau  Testament  sur  le  Grec,  ou 
sur  le  Latin,  sans  toucher  a  ce  Grec,  ni  a  ce  Latin.  Hist.  Crit, 
des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxi. 


292  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xt. 

this  very  article,  taken  up  the  defence  of  Castalio 
against  Beza,  who  had  attacked,  with  much  acri- 
mony, the  innovations  of  the  former,  in  point  of 
language.  "  It  is  not,  as  Beza  very  well  said," 
(I  quote  Beza  here  as  quoted  by  Simon",)  "  so 
"  much  my  opinion  as  that  of  the  ablest  ecclesi- 
"  astic  writers,  who,  when  they  discourse  with 
"  the  greatest  elegance  concerning  sacred  things, 
"  make  no  alteration  on  the  passages  of  Scrip- 
"  ture  which  they  quote."  Though  this  verdict 
of  Beza  is  introduced  with  manifest  approba- 
tion, dit-il  fort  bieii,  and  though,  in  confirma- 
tion of  it,  he  adds,  that  both  Beza  and  Castalio 
have  taken,  in  this  respect,  unpardonable  liber- 
ties, yet  it  is  very  soon  follow^ed  by  such  a 
censure  as,  in  my  opinion,  invalidates  the  whole. 
"  There    is,    nevertheless,"     says    he  ^^,     "  some 

^5  Ce  rt'est  pas,  dit  il  fort  bien,  tant  mon  sentiment,  que 
celui  des  plus  habiles  ecrivains  ecclesiastiques,  lesquels,  quand 
meme  ils  parlent  avec  le  plus  de  politesse  des  choses  sacrees, 
ne  changent  rien  dans  les  passages  de  I'Ecriture  qu'ils  citent. 
Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T.  ch.  xxiv. 

56  II  y  a  neanmoins  de  I'exaggeration  dans  ce  reprOche. 
Car  il  n'est  ici  question  que  de  la  version  des  livres  sacres,  et 
non  pas  de  Poriginal  :  et  ainsi  I'on  ne  peut  pas  objecter  a 
Castalio,  comme  fait  Beze,  d'avoir  change  les  paroles  du  Saint 
Esprit,  ou,  comme  il  parle,  divinam  illam  Spiritus  Sancti  elo- 
qucntiam.  II  est  certain  que  le  Saint  Esprit,  pour  me  servir  des 
termes  des  ministres  de  Geneve,  n'a  point  parle  Latin.  C'est 
pourquoi  Castalio  a  pu  mettre  dans  sa  traduction  Latine  lotio 
et  genii  au  lieu  de  baptisma  et  angeli,  sans  rien  changer  pour 
cela  dans  les  expressions  du  Saint  Esprit.  Hist.  Crit.  des  Ver- 
sions du  N.  T.  ch.  xxiv. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  293 

'"  exaggeration  in  this  reproach.  For  the  question 
"  here  is  about  the  version  of  the  sacred  books, 
"  and  not  about  the  original  ;  so  that  one  cannot 
"  object  to  Castalio,  as  Beza  does,  his  having 
"  changed  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or,  as 
"  he  expresses  it,  divinam  illam  Spiritiis  Sancti 
"  eloquentiam.  It  is  certain,  to  adopt  the  style  of 
"  the  ministers  of  Geneva,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
"  did  not  speak  Latin.  Wherefore,  Castalio  might 
"  well  put,  in  his  Latin  translation,  lotio  and  genii, 
"  instead  of  baptisma  and  angeli,  without  chang- 
"  ing  aught  in  the  expressions  of  the  Holy 
■"  Spirit."  Tike  moderation  and  justness  of  his 
sentiments  here,  do  not  well  accord,  either  with 
the  high  claims  which,  in  favour  of  ecclesiastic 
terms,  he  makes  to  consecration,  canonization,  &c. 
or  with  the  accusations  brought,  on  this  very  arti- 
cle, against  Erasmus  and  others. 

Wherein  does  the  expression  of  Theodore  Be- 
za, in  calling  those  ancient  words  and  23hrases  of 
the  Vulgate,  divinam  illam  Spiritus  Sancti  elo- 
quentiam, differ,  in  import,  from  that  given  by 
John  Bois,  who  says,  in  reference  to  them, 
Libettter  audio  Scripturam  siio  quidem  modo, 
siioqtie  velut  idiomate  loquentem  ?  May  it  not 
be  replied,  just  as  pertinently  to  Bois  as  to 
Beza  :  "  The  question  here,  is  about  the  version 
"  of  the  sacred  books,  and  not  about  the  original. 
*'  It  is  certain,  that  as  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not 
"  speak  Latin,  the  Scriptures  were  not  written  in 
"  that  language."  Their  phrases  and  idioms, 
therefore,  are  not  concerned  in  the  dispute  ;  for, 
if  those   expressions,   concerning   which  we  are 

voi^  n.  37 


294  ■    PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

now  inquiring,  be  not  the  language  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  Simon  himself  maintains  that  they  are 
not ;  neither  are  they  the  language  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Thus,  the  same  sentiment,  with  an  incon- 
siderable difference  in  the  expression,  is  quoted 
by  our  author,  with  high  approbation  from  the 
canon  of  Ely,  as  worthy  of  being  turned  into  a 
general  rule",  and  with  no  little  censure  from 
the  minister  of  Geneva. 

§  25.  I  HAVE  often  had  occasion  to  speak  of 
the  obscurity  of  such  terms,  and  I  have  shown  ^^ 
the  impropriety  of  several  of  them,  as  conveying 
ideas  very  different  from  those  conveyed  by  the 
words  of  the  original,  rightly  understood  :  and 
though  this  alone  would  be  a  sufficient  reason  for 
setting  them  aside,  sufficient,  I  mean,  to  any  person 
who  makes ,  more  account  of  obtaining  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit,  than  of  acquiring  the  dialect  of 
uninspired  interpreters  ;  the  very  reason  for 
which  the  use  of  them  is  so  strenuously  urged 
by  Simon  and  others,  appears  to  me  a  very 
weighty  reason  against  employing  them.  They 
are,  say  these  critics,  consecrated  words  ;  that  is, 
in  plain  language,  they  are,  by  the  use  ,of  -eccle- 
siastic writers,  become  a  sort  of  technical  terms 
in  theology.  This  is  really  the  fact.  According- 
ly, those  words  hardly  enter  into  common  use  at 

57  Cette    reflexion    doit   servir  de  regie  pour   une    infinite 

d'endroits  du  Nouveau  Testament,  ou  les  nouveaux  traducteura 

ont  afTecte  de  s'eloigner   de    Tancienne  edition   Latine.     Ibid. 

ch.  xxii. 

*^  Diss.  IX,  throughout. 


r.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  295 

all.  They  are  appropriated  as  terms  of  art,  which 
have  no  relation  to  the  ordinary  commerce  of  life. 
Now,  nothing  can  be  more  repugnant  to  the 
character  of  the  diction  employed  by  the  sacred 
writers  ;  there  being,  in  their  language,  nothing  to 
which  we  can  apply  the  words  scholastic  or  tech- 
nical. On  the  contrary,  the  inspired  penmen 
always  adopted  such  terms  as  were,  on  the  most 
common  occurrences,  in  familiar  use  with  their 
readers.  When  the  Evangelist  tells  ns  in  Greek  ^^ 
that  the  angel  said  to  the  shepherds,  EvayyBXi- 
tofiai  'vfiLv,  he  represents  him  as  speaking  in  as 
plain  terms  to  all  who  understood  Greek,  as  one 
who  says  in  English,  /  bmig  you  good  news, 
speaks  to  those  who  understand  English.  But 
will  it  be  said  that  the  Latin  interpreter  spoke  as 
plainly  to  every  reader  of  Latin,  when  he  said 
Evangelizo  vobis  ?  Or  does  that  deserve  to  be 
called  a  version,  which  conveys  neither  the  mat- 
ter, nor  the  manner,  of  the  author  ?  Not  the  nlat- 
ter,  because  an  unintelligible  word  conveys  no 
meaning ;  not  the  manner,  because  what  the 
author  said  simply  and  familiarly,  the  translator 
says  scholastically  and  pedantically.  Of  this, 
however,  I  do  not  accuse  Jerom.  The  phrase  in 
question  was,  doubtless,  one  of  those  which  he 
did  not  think  it  prudent  to  meddle  with. 

§  26.  Nor  will  their  method  of  obviating  all 
difficulties,  by  means  of  the  margin,  ever  satisfy  a 
reasonable  person.     Is  it  proper,  in  translating  an 

59  Luke,  ii.  10. 


296  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

author,  to  make  a  piece  of  patchwork  of  the 
version,  by  translating  one  v/ord,  and  mis-translat- 
ing, or  leaving  untranslated,  another,  with  per- 
petual references  to  the  margin,  for  correcting 
the  blunders  intentionally  committed  in  the  text  ? 
And  if  former  translators  have,  from  superstition, 
from  excessive  deference  to  their  predecessors, 
from  fear  of  giving  offence,  or  from  any  other 
motive,  been  induced  to  adopt  so  absurd  a  meth- 
od, shall  we  think  ourselves  obliged  to  imitate 
them  ?  Some  seem  strangely  to  imagine,  that  to 
have,  in  the  translation,  as  many  as  possible  of 
the  articulate  sounds,  the  letters  and  syllables  of 
the  original,  is  to  be  very  literal,  and,  conse- 
quently, very  close.  If  any  choose  to  call  this 
literal,  I  should  think  it  idle  to  dispute  with  him 
about  the  word  ;  but  I  co^jd  not  help  observing 
that,  in  this  way,  a  versio^  may  be  very  literal,, 
and  perfectly  foreign  from  the  purpose.  No- 
body will  question  that  the  English  word  phar- 
macy is  immediately  derived  from  the  Greek 
fpagfiax8ia,  of  which  it  retains  almost  all  the  let- 
ters. Ought  we,  for  that  reason,  to'  render  the 
Greek  word  (pagixaxeia,  pharmacy^  in  the  cata- 
logue the  Apostle  has  given  us  of  the  works  of 
the  flesh  ^°  ?  Must  we  render  7rapo|vtf^os"  pa- 
roxysm,  and  TtagaSo^a  ^^  paradoxes  ?  Idiot  is,  by 
this  rule,  a  literal  version  of  the  Greek  idiarris. 
But  an  interpreter  would  be  thought  not  much 
above  that  character,  who  should  render  It  so,  in 
several  places  of  Scripture  ^^     Yet  if  this  be  not 

60  Gal.  V.  19,  20,  21.         "  Acts,  xv.  39.         62  Luke,  v.  26. 
cs  Acts,  iv.  1.3.     1  Cor.  xiv.  16.  23.  24.     2  Cor.  xi.  6. 


V.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  297 

exhibiting  what  Beza  denominates  divinam  illam 
Spiritus  sancti  eloquentiam  :  or  what  Bois,  with  no 
better  reason,  calls  Scriptiiram  suo  quidem  modo, 
suoque  velut  idiomate  loquentem^  it  will  not  be 
easy  to  assign  an  intelligible  'meaning  to  these 
phrases. 

But,  if  such  be  the  proper  exhibition  of  the 
eloquente  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  the  idiom  of  Scrip- 
ture, it  will  naturally  occur  to  ask,  Why  have  we 
so  little,  even  in  the  Vulgate,  of  this  divine  elo- 
quence ?  Why  do  we  so  seldom  hear  the  Scrip- 
ture, even  there,  speak  in  its  own  way,  and  in  its 
native  idiom  ?  Jt  would  have  been  easy  to  muti- 
late all,  or  most  of  the  Greek  words,  forming  them 
in  the  same  manner  as  evangelizatus  and  scan- 
dalizatus  are  formed,  and  so  to  turn  the  whole  into 
a  gibberish,  that  would  have  been  neither  Greek 
nor  Latin,  though  it  might  have  had  something 
of  the  articulation  of  the  one  language,  and  of  the 
structure  of  the  other.  But  it  is  an  abuse  of 
speech,  to  call  a  jargon  of  words,  wherein  we  have 
nothing  but  a  resemblance  in  sound,  without  sense, 
the  eloquence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  idiom  of 
the  Scriptures. 

It  is  sometimes  made  the  pretence  for  retaining 
the  original  w^ord,  that  it  has  different  significa- 
tions, and,  therefore,  an  interpreter,  by  preferring 
one  of  these,  is  in  danger  of  hurting  the  sense. 
Thus,  the  Rhemish  translators,  who  render  aXXov 
TtagaTcXr^Tov  daast  vfiiv  ^^,  He  tvill  give  yoii  another 
paraclete,  subjoin  this  note  :  "  Paraclete,  by  inter- 

61  John,  xjv.  IG. 


298  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi, 

"  pretation,  is  either  a  comforter,  or  an  advocate  ; 
"  and,  therefore,  to  translate  it  by  any  one  of  them 
"  only,  is,  perhaps,  to  abridge  the  sense  of  this 
"  place  :"  to  which  Fulke,  who  publishes  their 
New  Testament  along  with  the  then  common  ver- 
sion, answers  very  pertinently,  in  the  note  im- 
mediately following :  "  If  you  will  not  translate 
"  any  words  that  have  diverse  significations,  you 
"  must  leave  five  hundred  more  untranslated  than 
"  you  have  done."  But  there  is  not  even  this 
poor  pretence  for  all  the  consecrated  barbarisms. 
The  verb  evayyeki^ofxai  never  occurs  in  the  Gos- 
pels in  any  sense  but  one,  a  sense  easily  expressed 
in  the  language  of  every  people. 

§  27.  It  may  be  replied, '  If  you  will  not  admit 
'  with  Beza,  that  this  mode  of  writing  is  the  elo- 

*  quence  of  the  Spirit,  or  with  Bois,  that  it  is  the 
'  idiom  of  Scripture,  you  must  at  least  allow,  with 
'  Melancthon,  that  it  is  the  language  and  style  of 

*  the  church :  J\*os  loquamur  cum  ecclesia.  JVe 
'  piideat  nos  materni  sermonis.  Ecclesia  est  mater 
'  nostra.  Sic  autem  loquitur  ecclesia.''  This 
comes  indeed  nearer  the  point  in  hand.  The 
language  of  the  Latin  church  is,  in  many  things, 
founded  in  the  style  introduced  by  the  ancient 
interpreters.  But  it  ought  to  be  remembered, 
that  even  the  Latin  church  herself  does  not  pre- 
sent those  interpreters  to  us  as  infallible,  or  afhrm 
that  their  language  is  irreprehensible.  ~~And  if 
she  herself  has  been  any  how  induced  to  adopt  a 
style  that  is  not  well  calculated  for  conveying  the 
mind  of  the  Lord;    nay,  which  in  many  things 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  •  299 

darkens,  and  in  some  misrepresents  it,  shall  we 
make  less  account  of  communicating  clearly  the 
truths  revealed  by  the  Spirit,  than  of  perpetuating 
a  phraseology  which  contributes  to  the  advance- 
ment of  ignorance,  and  of  an  implicit  deference, 
in  spiritual  matters,  to  human  authority?  On  the 
contrary,  if  the  church  has,  in  process  of  time, 
contracted  somewhat  of  a  Babylonish  dialect,  and 
thereby  lost  a  great  deal  of  her  primitive  sim- 
plicity, purity,  and  plainness  of  manner  ;  her  lan- 
guage cannot  be  too  soon  cleared  of  the  unnatural 
mixture,  and  we  cannot  too  soon  restore  her  na- 
tive idiom.  To  act  thus  is  so  far  from  beins:  im- 
putable  to  the  love  of  novelty,  that  it  results  from 
that  veneration  of  antiquity  which  leads  men  to 
ask  for  the  old  paths,  and  makes  the  votaries  of 
the  true  religion  desirous  to  return  to  the  undis- 
guised sentiments,  manner,  and  style  of  holy  writ, 
which  are  evidently  more  ancient  than  the  oldest 
of  those  canonized  corruptions.  This  is  not  to 
relinquish,  it  is  to  return  to  the  true  idiom  of 
Scripture :  with  as  little  propriety  is  such  a  truly 
primitive  manner  charged  with  the  want  of  sim- 
plicity. A  technical  or  learned  style  is  of  all 
styles  the  least  entitled  to  be  called  simple  :  for  it 
is  the  least  fitted  for  conveying  instruction  to  the 
simple,  to  babes  in  knowledge,  the  character  by 
which  those  to  whom  the  Gospel  was  first  pub- 
lished, were  particularly  distinguished  *^^  Whereas 
the  tendency  of  a  scholastic  phraseology,  is,  on  the 

«5  Matth.  xi.  25.     Luke,  x.  21. 


300  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

contrary,  to  hide  divine  things  from  babes  and 
simple  persons,  and  to  reveal  them  only  to  sages 
and  scholars.  Never,  therefore,  was  controvertist 
more  unlucky  in  his  choice  of  arguments  than  our 
opponents,  on  this  article,  are,  in  urging  the  plea 
of  simplicity,  and  that  of  Scripture  idiom,  topics 
manifestly  subversive  of  their  cause. 

§  28.  The  impropriety  of  changing,  on  any 
pretext,  the  consecrated  terms,  and  the  improprie- 
ty of  giving  to  the  people,  within  the  pale  of  the 
Roman  church,  any  translation  of  Scripture  into 
their  mother-tongue,  unless  from  the  Vulgate,  are 
topics  to  which  Father  Simon  frequently  recurs. 
And,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that,  on  his  hy- 
pothesis, which  puts  the  authority  of  tradition  on 
the  same  foot  with  that  of  Scripture,  and  makes 
the. church  the  depositary  and  interpreter  of  both,, 
there  appears  a  suitableness  in  his  doctrine.  He 
admits,  however,  that  the  translation  she  has 
adopted,  is  not  entirely  exempted  from  errors, 
thoudi  free  from  such  as  affect  the  articles  of 
faith,  or  rules  of  practice.  This  propriety  of 
translating  only  from  the  Vulgate,  he  maintains 
from  this  single  consideration,  its  being  that  which 
is  read  for  Scripture  daily  in  their  churches. 

Now  this  argument  is  of  no  weight  with  Protes- 
tants, and  appears  not  to  be  entitled  to  much 
Aveight  even  with  Roman  Catholics.  If  there  be 
no  impropriety  in  their  being  supplied  with  an 
exact  version  of  what  is  read  in  their  churches  ; 
neither  is  there  any  impropriety  in  their  being 
supplied  with  an  exact  version  of  what  was  writ- 


r.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  801 

ten  by  the  inspired  penmen,  for  the  instruction  of 
the  first  Christians.  This  appears  as  reasonable, 
and  as  laudable,  an  object  of  curiosity,  even  to  Ro- 
manists, as  the  other.  Nay,  I  should  think  this, 
even  on  Simon's  own  principles,  defensible.  The 
sacred  penmen  were  infallible,  so  was  not  the 
ancient  interpreter.     He  will  reply, '  But  ye  have 

*  not  the  very  hand-writings  of  the  Apostles  and 

*  Evangelists.      There   are   different   readings   in 

*  different  Greek   copies.     Ye    are  not,  therefore, 

*  absolutely    certain   of  the    conformity   of    your 

*  Greek  in    every  thing,  any  more  than  we  are  of 

*  our  Latin,  to  ^hose  original  writings.'  This  w^e 
admit,  but  still  insist  that  there  is  a  difference. 
The  Latin  has  been  equally  exposed  with  the 
Greek  to  the  blunders  of  transcribers.  And  as, 
in  some  things,  different  Greek  copies  read  differ- 
ently, we  receive  that  version,  with  other  ancient 
translations,  to  assist  us,  in  doubtful  cases,  to  dis- 
cover the  true  reading.  But  the  Vulgate,  with 
every  other  version,  labours  under  this  additional 
disadvantage  that,  along  with  the  errors  arising 
from  the  blunders  of  copiers,  it  has  those  also 
arising  from  the  mistakes  of  the  interpreter. 

§  29.  But,  in  fact,  the  secret  reason  both  for 
preserving  the  consecrated  terms,  and  for  trans- 
lating only  from  the  Vulgate,  is  no  other  than 
to  avoid,  as  much  as  possible,  whatever  might 
suggest  to  the  people,  that  the  Spirit  says  one 
thing  and  the  Church  another.  It  is  not  according 
to  the  true  principles  of  ecclesiastical  policy,  that 

VOL.  n.  38 


302  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xr. 

such  differences  should  be  exposed  to  the  vulgar. 
This  the  true  sons  of  the  church  have  discovered 
long  ago.  "  Gardiner,"  says  bishop  Burnet  ^^ 
"  had  a  singular  conceit.  He  fancied  there  were 
"  many  words  in  the  New  Testament  of  such 
"  majesty  that  they  were  not  to  be  translated,  but 
"  must  stand  in  the  English  Bible  as  they  were  in 
"  the  Latin.  A  hundred  of  these  he  put  into  a 
"  writing,  which  was  read  in  convocation.  His 
"  design  in  this  was  visible,  that  if  a  translation 
"  must  be  made,  it  should  be  so  daubed  all  through 
"  with  Latin  words,  that  the  people  should  not 
"  understand  it  much  the  better  for  its  being  in 
"  English.  A  taste  of  this  the  reader  may  have 
"  by  the  first  twenty  of  them  ;  ecclesia,  pcenitentia, 
^' po?itifex,  ancilla,  contrittis,  olocansta,  justitia, 
'''^justification  idiota,  elementa,  baptizare,  martyr, 
"  adorare,  sandaliimi,  simplex,  tetrarcha,.  sacra- 
*'  mentum,  sinmlacrum,  gloria.  The  design  he 
"  had  of  keeping  some  of  these,  particularly  the 
"  last  save  one,  is  plain  enough,  that  the  people 
"  might  not  discover  that  visible  opposition  which 
"  was  between  the  Scriptures  and  the  Iloma,n 
"  church,  in  the  matter  of  images.  This  could  not 
"  be  better  palliated,  than  by  disguising  these 
"  places  with  words  that  the  people  understood 
"  not."     Thus  far  the  bishop. 

§  30.  It  would  not  be  easy  to  conjecture  why 
Gardiner,  that  zealous  opposer  of  the  reformation, 

^^  History  of  the  Reformation  in  England,  book  iii.  year  1542. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  303 

selected  some  of  the  words  above  mentioned  as 
proper  to  be  retained,  unless  by  their  number  and 
frequent  recurrence,  to  give  an  uncouth  and  ex- 
otic appearance  to  the  whole  translation.  In 
regard  to  others  of  them,  as  -the  bishop  justly 
remarks,  the  reason  is  obvious.  And  it  is  to  be 
regretted  that  that  historian  has  not  inserted  in 
his  valuable  work  the  whole  catalogue.  Nothing 
could  serve  better  to  expose  the  latent  but  gen- 
uine purpose  of  the  consecrated  terms.  Not  that 
any  judicious  person  can  be  at  a  loss  to  discover 
it ;  but  the  more  numerous  the  examples  are,  the 
evidence  is  the  stronger.  The  meaning  of  com- 
mon words  is  learnt  solely  from  common  usage, 
but  the  import  of  canonized  words  can  be  got 
only  from  canonical  usage.  We  all  know  what  an 
image  is,  it  being  a  word  in  familiar  use  ;  we 
therefore  find  no  difficulty  in  discovering  what  we 
are  forbidden  to  worship,  by  the  command  which 
forbids  the  worship  of  images.  Whereas,  had 
the  word  simulacrum,  quite  unused  before,  been 
substituted  for  image,  it  would  have,  doubtless, 
acquired  a  currency  on  theological  subjects  ;  but, 
being  confined  to  these,  would  have  been  no  bet- 
ter than  a  technical  term  in  theology,  for  the 
meaning  of  which,  recourse  must  be  had  to  men 
of  the  profession.  Nor  would  it  have  required  of 
the  casuist  any  metaphysical  acuteness  in  distin- 
guishing, to  satisfy  those  whom  he  taught  to  wor- 
ship images,  that  they  were  in  no  danger  of 
•adoring  a  simulacrum, 

§  31.  To  prevent  mistakes,  it  may  not  be  im- 
proper to  observe,  that  the  word  simulacrum  in 


304  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

the  Vulgate  itself  is  no  more  a  term  of  art  than 
similitudo  or  imago  are  ;  for  they  are  all  words 
in  familiar  use  in  Latin  ;  but  simulacrum  is  not 
in  familiar  use  in  English,  though  similitude  and 
image  are,  which  are  both  formed  from  Latin 
words  of  the  same  signification.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, their  affinity,  or  even  identity  in  respect  of 
sound,  but  their  difference  in  respect  of  use, 
which  stamps  nearly  related  words,  or  what  we 
call  convertible  terms,  with  these  different  char- 
acters, in  different  languages.  Thus  evayysXi^ca 
and  axavSaXt'Ca  are  common,  not  technical,  terms, 
in  the  Greek  New  Testament :  but  evangelizo 
and  scandalizo  in  the  Vulgate  are  the  reverse, 
technical,  not  common.  Now  it  is  for  this  rea- 
son, I  say,  that  to  adopt,  without  necessity,  such 
terms  in  a  language  to  which  they  do  not  belong, 
and  in  which  consequently  they  are  unknown, 
or  known  merely  as  professional  terms,  is  to  form 
a  style  the  very  reverse  of  what  I  should  call 
the  eloquence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  proper 
idiom  of  the  Scriptures.  For  a  greater  contrast 
to  the  plain  and  familiar  idiom  of  Scripture,  and 
the  eloquence  of  the  Spirit,  addressed  entirely  to 
the  people,  than  a  style  that  is  justly  denom- 
inated dark,  learned,  and  technical,  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive. 

Let  it  be  observed,  therefore,  that  it  is  the  use, 
not  the  etymology,  to  which,  in  translating,  we 
ought  to  have  respect,  either  in  adopting,  or  in 
rejecting,  an  expression.  A  word  is  neither  the 
better,  nor  the  worse,  for  its  being  of  Greek,  or 
Latin  origin.     But  our  first  care  ought  to  be,  that 


V.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  305 

it  convey  the  same  meaning  with  the  original 
term ;  the  second,  that  it  convey  it  as  nearly  as 
possible  in  the  same  manner,  that  is,  with  the 
same  plainness,  simplicity,  and  perspicuity.  If 
this  can  be  done,  with  equal  advantage,  by  terms 
which  have  obtained  the  sanction  of  ecclesiastic 
use,  such  terms  ought  to  be  preferred.  For  this 
reason  I  prefer  just  to  virtuous,  redeemer  to  ran- 
somer,  saviour  to  deliverer.  But  if  the  same 
meaning  be  not  conveyed  by  them,  or  not  convey- 
ed in  the  same  manner,  they  ought  to  be  rejected. 
Otherwise,  the  real  dictates  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
unadulterated  idiom  of  Scripture,  are  sacrificed  to 
the  shadowy  resemblance,  in  sound,  and  etymolo- 
gy, of  technical  words,  and  scholastic  phrases. 

§  32.  Such,  upon  the  whole,  are  my  sentiments 
of  the  regard  which,  in  translating  holy  writ  into 
modern  languages,  is  due  to  the  practice  of  for- 
mer translators,  especially  of  the  authors  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate.  And  such,  in  particular,  is  my 
notion  of  those  words  which,  by  some  critics,  are 
called  consecrated,  and,  which,  in  general,  in  res- 
pect of  the  sense,  will  not  be  found  the  most 
eligible  ;  nay,  by  the  use  of  which,  there  is  greater 
hazard  of  deserting  that  plainness,  and  that  sim- 
plicity, which  are  the  best  characteristics  of  the 
Scripture  style,  than  by  any  other  means  I  know. 


306  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 


PART  II. 


THE    REGARD    DUE    TO    THE    ENGLISH    TRANSLATION. 

Having  been  so  particular  in  the  discussion  of 
the  first  part  of  this  inquiry,  namely,  the  regard 
which,  in  translating  the  Scriptures,  is  due  to  the 
manner  wherein  the  words  and  phrases  have  been 
rendered  by  the  authors  of  the  Vulgate,  it  will  not 
be  necessary  to  enter  so  minutely  into  the  second 
part,  concerning  the  regard  which  an  English 
translator  owes  to  the  expressions  adopted  in  the 
common  translation.  The  reasons  for  adopting, 
or  for  rejecting,  many  of  them  are  so  nearly  the 
same  in  both  cases,  that,  to  avoid  prolixity  by  un- 
necessary repetitions,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  a 
few  observations,  to  which  the  special  circum- 
stances affecting  the  common  English  version, 
naturally  give  rise. 

§  2.  That  translation,  ^ve  all  know,  was  made 
at  a  time  when  the  study  of  the  original  lan- 
guages, which  had  been  long  neglected,  was  just 
revived  in  Europe.  To  this  the  invention  of 
printing  first,  and  the  reformation  soon  afterwards, 
had  greatly  contributed.  As  it  grew  to  be  a 
received  doctrine  among  Protestants,  that  the 
word  of  God,  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  is  the 


P-  "•]  DISSERTATIONS.  307 

sole  infallible  rule  Avhich  he  has  given  us  of  faith 
and   manners  ;    the   ineffable   importance   of   the 
study  of  Scripture  was  perceived  more  and  more, 
every  day.       New  translations  were  made,   first 
into  Latin,  the  common  language   of  the  learned, 
and  afterwards  into  most  European  tongues.     The 
study  of  languages  naturally  introduces  the  study 
of  criticism,  I  mean  that  branch  of  criticism  which 
has   language  for   its    object ;    and   which  is,  in 
effect,  no   other  than  the  utmost  improvement  of 
the  grammatical  art.    But  this,  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged, was  not  then  arrived  at  that   perfection 
which,  in   consequence   of  the  labours  of  many 
learned  and  ingenious    men,   of   different   parties 
and    professions,    it   has   reached    since.       What 
greatly  retarded  the  progress  of  this  study,  in  the 
first   age    of  the    reformation,   was  the   incessant 
disputes  about  articles  of  doctrine,  ecclesiastical 
polity,  and   ceremonies,   in  which   the   reformers 
were    engaged,    both   with    the    Romanists,    and 
among  themselves.     This  led  them  i/isensibly  to 
recur  to  the  weapons  which  had  been  employed 
agamst   them,    and    of   which   they   had   at   first 
spoken   very   contemptuously,    the   metaphysical 
and  umntelligible  subtleties  of  school-divinity 

This  recourse  was  productive  of  two  bad  conse- 
quences. First,  it  diverted  them  from  the  critical 
study  of  the  sacred  languages,  the  surest  human 
means  for  discovering  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  • 
secondly,  it  infused  into  the  heads  of  the  disput* 
ants  prepossessions  in  favour  of  such  particular 
words  and  phrases  as  are  adapted  to  the  dialect 
and  system  of  th^  parties  to  which  they  severally 


308  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

attached  themselves  ;  and  in  prejudice  of  those 
words  and  phrases  which  seem  more  suitable  to 
the  style  and  sentiments  of  their  adversaries. 
There  is,  perhaps,  but  too  good  reason  for  adding 
an  evil  consequence  produced  also  upon  the  heart, 
in  kindling  wrath,  and  quenching  charity.  It  was 
when  matters  were  in  this  situation,  that  several 
of  the  first  translations  were  made.  Men's  minds 
were  then  too  much  heated  with  their  polemic 
exercises,  to  be  capable  of  that  impartial,  can- 
did, and  dispassionate  examination,  which  is  so 
necessary  in  those  who  would  approve  themselves 
faithful  interpreters  of  the  oracles  of  God.  Of  an 
undue  bias  on  the  judgment  in  translating,  in 
consequence  of  such  perpetual  wranglings,  I  have 
given  some  specimens  in  the  former  Dissertation". 

§  3.  In  regard  to  the  common  translation, 
though  not  entirely  exempted  from  the  influence 
of  party  and  example,  as  I  formerly  had  occasion 
to  show^^  it  is,  upon  the  whole,  one  of  the  best 
of  those  composed  so  soon  after  the  Reformation. 
I  may  say  justly  that,  if  it  had  not  been  for  an 
immoderate  attachment,  in  its  authors,  to  the 
Genevese  translators,  Junius,  Tremellius,  and 
Beza,  it  had  been  still  better  than  it  is ;  for  the 
greatest  faults  with  which  it  is  chargeable,  are 
derived  from  this  source.  But  since  that  time, 
it  must  be  owned,  things  are  greatly  altered  in 
the  church.      The  rage  of  disputation  on  points 

67  Part  V.  §  4,  &.C.  ^8  Diss.  X.  p.  V.  §  4,  kc. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  309 

rather  curious  than  edifying,  or,  as  the  Apostle 
calls  it  ^^  the  dotage  about  questions  and  strifes 
of  words,  has,  at  least,  among  men  of  talents  and 
erudition,  in  a  great  measure,  subsided.  The 
reign  of  scholastic  sophistry  and  altercation  is 
pretty  well  over.  Now,  when  to  this  reflection 
we  add  a  proper  attention  to  the  great  acquisitions 
in  literature  which  have  of  late  been  made,  in 
respect,  not  only,  of  languages,  but  also,  of  antiqui- 
ties and  criticism,  it  cannot  be  thought  derogatory 
from  the  merit  and  abilities  of  those  worthy  men 
who  formerly  bestowed  their  time  and  labour  on 
that  importantr  work,  to  suppose  that  many  mis- 
takes, which  were  then  inevitable,  we  are  now  in 
a  condition  to  correct. 

To  effect  this,  is  the  first,  and  ought,  doubtless, 
to  be  the  principal,  motive  for  attempting  another 
version.  Whatever  is  discovered  to  be  the  sense 
of  the  Spirit,  speaking  in  the  Scriptures,  ought 
to  be  regarded  by  us,  as  of  the  greatest  conse- 
quence :  nor  will  any  judicious  person,  who  has 
not  been  accustomed  to  consider  religion  in  a 
political  light,  as  a  mere  engine  of  state,  deny  that 
where  the  truth  appears,  in  any  instance,  to  have 
been  either  misrepresented,  or  but  obscurely  rep- 
resented, in  a  former  version,  the  fault  ought,  in 
an  attempt  like  the  present,  as  far  as  possible,  to 
be  corrected.  To  say  the  contrary,  is  to  make 
the  honourable  distinction  of  being  instruments 
in  promoting  the  knowledge  of  God,  of  less  mo- 

69  1  Tim.  vi.  4. 
VOL.  II.  39 


310  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

ment,  than  paying  a  vain  compliment  to  former 
translators,  or,  perhaps,  showing  an  immoderate 
deference  to  popular  humour,  which  is  always 
attached  to  customary  phrases,  whether  they  con- 
vey the  true  meaning,  or  a  false  meaning,  or  any 
meaning  at  all.  This,  therefore,  is  unquestionably 
a  good  ground  for  varying  from  those  who  pre- 
ceded us. 

§  4.  It  deserves  further  to  be  remarked  that, 
from  the  changes  incident  to  all  languages,  it 
sometimes  happens  that  words,  which  expressed 
the  true  sense  at  the  time  when  a  translation  was 
made,  come  afterwards  to  express  a  different 
sense ;  in  consequence  whereof,  though  those 
terms  were  once  a  proper  version  of  the  words  in 
the  original,  they  are  not  so  after  such  an  altera- 
tion, having  acquired  a  meaning  different  from 
that  which  they  had  formerly.  In  this  case, ,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that,  in  a  new  translation,  such 
terms  ought  to  be  changed.  I  hinted  before  '^°, 
that  I  look  upon  this  as  having  been  the  case  with 
some  of  the  expressions  employed  in  the  Vulgate. 
They  conveyed  the  meaning  at  the  time  that  ver- 
sion was  made,  but  do  not  so  now.  I  shall  instance 
only  in  two.  The  phrase  poanitentiam  agite  was, 
in  Jerom's  time,  nearly  equivalent  in  signification 
to  the  Greek  fjisravosiTS.  It  is  not  so  at  present. 
In  consequence  of  the  usages  which  have  crept 
in,  and  obtained  an  establishment  in  the  churches 
subject  to  Rome,  it  no  longer  conveys  the  same 

70  Part  III.  §  9. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  311 

idea;  for  having  become  merely  an  ecclesiastic 
term,  its  acceptation  is  regulated  only  by  eccle- 
siastic use.  Now,  in  that  use,  it  exactly  corres- 
ponds to  the  English  words  do  penance  ;  by 
which,  indeed,  the  Rhemish  *  translators,  who 
translate  from  the  Vulgate,  have  rendered  it  in 
their  New  Testament.  Now,  as  no  person  of 
common  sense,  who  understands  the  language,  will 
pretend,  that  to  enjoin  us  to  do  penance,  and  to 
enjoin  us  to  reform  or  repent,  is  to  enjoin  the  same 
thing ;  both  Erasmus  and  Beza  were  excusable, 
noth withstanding  the  censure  pronounced  by  Bois 
,  and  Simon,  in  deserting  the  Vulgate  in  this  place, 
and  employing  the  unambiguous  term  resipiscite, 
in  preference  to  a  phrase,  now  at  least  become  so 
equivocal  as  pcenitentiam  agite.  We  may  warrant- 
ably  say  more,  and  affirm,  that  they  would  not 
have  acted  the  part  of  faithful  translators,  if  they 
had  done  otherwise. 

It  was,  to  appearance,  the  uniform  object  of  the 
priest  of  the  Oratory  (I  know  not  what  may  have 
biassed  the  canon  of  Ely)  to  put  honour  upon  the 
church,  by  which  he  meant  the  church  of  Rome  ; 
to  respect,  above  all  things,  and  at  all  hazards,  her 
dogmas,  her  usages,  her  ceremonies,  her  very 
words  and  phrases.  The  object  of  Christian  inter- 
preters is,  above  all  things,  and  at  all  hazards,  to 
convey,  as  perspicuously  as  they  can,  the  truths 
of  the  Spirit.  If  the  former  ought  to  be  the  prin- 
cipal object  of  the  translators  of  holy  writ,  Simon 
was  undoubtedly  in  the  right ;  if  the  latter,  he 
was  undoubtedly  in  the  wrong.  The  other  ex- 
pression in  the  Vulgate,  which  may  not  improba- 


S19  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

bly  have  been  proper  at  the  time  when  that  trans- 
lation was  made,  though  not  at  present,  is  sacra- 
menhim  for  (.ivaTT^gtov,  in  the  second  scriptural  sense 
which  I  observe  to  be  sometimes  given  to  the 
Greek  word  '^  But,  in  consequence  of  the  altera- 
tions which  have  since  taken  place  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal use,  the  Latin  term  has  acquired  a  meaning 
totally  different,  and  is  therefore  now  no  suitable 
expression  of  the  sense. 

§  5.  Now,  what  has  been  observed  of  the  Latin 
words  above  mentioned,  has  already  happened  to 
several  words  employed  in  the  common  English 
translation.  Though  this  may  appear,  at  first, 
extraordinary,  as  it  is  not  yet  two  centuries  since 
that  version  was  made ;  it  is,  nevertheless,  un- 
questionable. The  number  of  changes  whereby  a 
living  language  is  affected  in  particular  periods,  is 
not  always  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  time.  It 
depends  on  the  stage  of  advancement,  in  which 
the  language  happens  to  be,  during  the  period, 
more  than  on  the  length  of  the  period.  The  Eng- 
lish tongue,  and  the  French  too,  if  I  mistake  not, 
have  undergone  a  much  greater  change  than  the 
Italian,  in  the  last  three  hundred  years  ;  and  per- 
haps as  great  as  the  Greek  underwent,  from  the 
time  of  Homer  to  that  of  Plutarch,  which  was 
more  than  four  times  as  long.  It  is  not  merely 
the  number  of  writings  in  any  language,  but  it  is 
rather  their  merit  and  eminence,  whiclr  confers 
stability  on  its  words,  phrases  and  idioms. 

71  Diss.  IX.  Part  I.  §  7. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  313 

Certain  it  is  that  there  is  a  considerable  change 
in  our  own  since  the  time  mentioned ;  a  change 
in  respect  of  the  construction  as  well  as  of  the 
significations  of  the  words.  In  some  cases,  we 
combine  the  words  differently  from  the  way  in 
which  they  were  combined  at  the  time  above  re- 
ferred to :  we  have  acquired  many  words  which 
were  not  used  then,  and  many  then  in  use  are 
now  either  obsolete,  or  used  in  a  different  sense. 
These  changes  I  shall  here  briefly  exemplify.  As 
habit  is  apt  to  mislead  us,  and  we  are  little  dis- 
posed to  suspect  that  the  meaning  of  a  word  or 
phrase,  to  which  we  are  familiarised,  was  not 
always  the  meaning;  to  give  some  examples  of 
such  alteration,  may  prevent  us  from  rashly  ac- 
cusing former  translators,  for  improprieties  where- 
with they  are  not  chargeable;  and  to  specify 
alterations  on  our  own  language,  may  serve  to 
remove  the  doubts  of  those  who  imagine  there  is 
an  improbability  in  what  I  have  formerly  main- 
tained, concerning  the  variations  which  several 
words,  in  ancient  languages,  have  undergone  in 
different  periods.  Now,  this  is  a  point  of  so  great 
moment  to  the  literary  critic  and  antiquary,  that  it 
is  impossible  thoroughly  to  understand,  or  accu- 
rately to  interpret,  ancient  authors,  without  paying 
due  regard  to  it.  Through  want  of  this  regard, 
many  things  in  ecclesiastic  history  have  been 
much  misunderstood,  and  grossly  misrepresented. 
Unluckily,  on  this  subject,  powerful  secular  mo- 
tives interfering,  have  seduced  men  to  contribute 
to  the  general  deception,  and  to  explain  ancient 
names    by    usages    and    opinions    comparatively 


314  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

modern.     But  this  by  the  way ;  I  proceed  to  the 
examples. 

§  6.  I  INTEND  to  consider,  first,  the  instances  af- 
fected by  the  last  of  the  circumstances  above 
mentioned,  namely,  those  wherein  the  significa- 
tion is  changed,  though  the  term  itself  remains. 
Of  such  I  shall  now  produce  some  examples ; 
first,  in  nouns.  The  word  conversation^  which 
means  no  more  at  present,  than  familiar  discourse 
of  two  or  more  persons,  did,  at  the  time  when  the 
Bible  was  translated,  denote  behaviour  in  the  largest 
acceptation.  The  Latin  word  conversatio,  which 
is  that  generally  used  in  the  Vulgate,  answer- 
ing to  the  Greek  avaaigoqjrf,  has  commonly  this 
meaning.  But  the  English  word  has  never,  as  far 
as  I  have  observed,  this  acceptation,  in  the  present 
use,  except  in  the  law  phrase,  criminal  conversa- 
tion. And  I  have  reason  to  believe  that,  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  universally  mistaken  by  the 
unlearned,  as  signifying  no  more  than  familiar  talk 
or  discourse.  Hence  it  has  also  happened,  that 
hypocrites  and  fanatics  have  thought  themselves 
authorised,  by  the  words  of  Scripture,  in  placing 
almost  the  whole  of  practical  religion  in  this  alone. 
Yet,  I  do  not  remember  that  the  word  occurs,  so 
much  as  once,  in  Scripture,  in  this  sense.  What 
we  call  conversation  must,  indeed,  be  considered 
as  included,  because  it  is  a  very  important  part  of 
behaviour ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  par- 
ticularly specified.  In  one  passage,  it  is  expressly 
distinguished  from  familiar  discourse  or  conversa- 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  315 

tion,  in  the  modern  import  of  the  word.  Tvitos 
yLvov  rav  Ttiozav  sv  Xoya,  sv  avaaigorprj,  rendered 
in  the  common  version,  "  Be  an  example  of  the 
"  believers  in  ivord,  in  co?iv€rsation  ^^."  That  these 
words  A070  and  avaargofri,  are  not  synonymous, 
the  repeating  of  the  preposition  sufficiently  shows. 
Though,  therefore,  not  improperly  rendered  at 
that  time,  when  the  English  term  was  used  in  a 
greater  latitude  of  signification,  they  ought,  mani- 
festly, to  be  rendered  now,  in  conversation,  in  be- 
haviour ;  the  first  answering  to  Xoyos,  the  second 
to  avaGTyo(p7i. 

Another  instance  of  such  a  variation  we  have  in 
the  word  thief^  which,  in  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, is  confounded  with  robber,  and  probably  was 
so  also,  in  common  language  at  that  time,  but  is 
now  invariably  distinguished.  They  are  always 
carefully  distinguished  in  the  original,  the  former 
being  xXennf?,  the  latter  At^o^tt^s.  The  two  crimi- 
nals who  were  crucified  with  our  Lord,  are  always 
called,  by  the  two  Evangelists,  who  specify  their 
crime,  Xr^axai  ^^  never  ytkeTCjaL.  Yet  our  transla- 
tors have  always  rendered  it  thieves,  never  rob- 
bers. This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  what  we 
now  call  theft,  was  not  a  capital  crime  among  the 
Jews.  Yet  the  penitent  malefactor  confessed 
upon  the  cross,  that  he  and  his  companion  suf- 
fered justly,  receiving  the  due  retvard  of  their 
deeds  ^^  He  probably  would  not  have  expressed 
himself  in    this   manner,   if    their   condemnation 


72  1  Tim.  iv.  12.  ^3  Matth.  xxvii.  38.  44.     Mark,  xv.  27. 

74  Luke,  xxiii.  41. 


316  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

had  not  been  warranted  by  the  law  of  Moses. 
And  though,  doubtless,  the  English  word,  at  that 
time,  was  used  with  greater  latitude  than  it  is  at 
present ;  yet,  as  they  had  rendered  the  same 
original  term  At^^tt^s,  when  applied  to  Barabbas, 
rohher''^^  they  ought  to  have  given  the  same  inter- 
pretation of  the  word,  as  applied  to  the  two  male- 
factors, who,  on  the  same  occasion,  were  accused 
of  the  same  crime.  In  like  manner,  in  the  parable 
of  the  compassionate  Samaritan,  the  words  render- 
ed, fell  among  thieves  '^  are,  X^axats  TtegisTtsasv. 
Hardly  would  any  person  now  confound  the  char- 
acter there  represented,  with  that  of  thieves. 

Again,  the  expression,  the  uppermost  rooms  '"^^ 
does  not  suggest  to  men  of  this  age,  the  idea  of 
the  chief  places  at  table,  but  that  of  the  apart- 
ments of  the  highest  story.  The  good  man  of 
the  house  '^^,  though  sufficiently  intelligible,  is  be- 
come too  homely  (not  to  say  ludicrous)  a  phrase 
for  the  master  of  the  family.  The  word  lust  '^^ 
is  used,  in  the  common  translation,  in  an  extent 
which  it  has  not  now ;  so  also  is  usury  ^°.  Wor- 
ship ^\  for  honour,  or  civil  respect  paid  to  men, 
does  not  suit  the  present  idiom.  The  words 
leivd    and    lewdness  ^^^  in   the   New  Testament, 


75  John,  xviii.  40.  "«  Luke,  x.  30. 

7T  Matth.  xxiii.  6.         '8  Matth.  xx.  1 1 .         ^9  Rom.  vii.  7. 

80  Matth.  XXV.  27.     Luke,  xix.  23.  si  Luke,  xiv.  10. 

*'2  See  an  excellent  illustration  of  the  remark,  in  regard  to 
these  two  words,  in  the  Disquisitions  concerning  the  Antiquities 
of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  4.  note. 


p.  H.]  DISSERTATIONS.  317 

convey  a  meaning  totally  different  from  that  in 
which  they  are  now  constantly  used.  The  word 
pitiful^  with  lis,  never  means,  as  it  does  in  Scrip- 
ture %  in  conformity  to  etymolog}',  compassion- 
ate, merciful  ;  but  paltry,  contemptible.  In  the 
following  words,  also,  there  is  a  deviation,  though 
not  so  considerable,  from  the  ancient  import. 
Meat  ^^  and  food  are  not  now  synonymous  terms, 
neither  are  ctmning^^  and  skilful,  honest  ^^  and 
decent!  or  becoming,  more  ^^  and  greater,  quick  ^^ 
and  living,  faithless  ^^  and  incredulous,  coasts '" 
and  territories,  or  borders  not  confining  with 
.the  sea. 

The  like  variations  have  happened  in  verbs. 
To  prevent  ^^  is  hardly  ever  now  used,  in  prose, 
for  to  go  before  ;  to  faint  ®^,  for  to  grow  faint,  to 
fail  in  strength ;  to  ensue  ^^  for  to  pursue  ;  to  pro- 
voke %  for  to  excite  to  what  is  proper  and  com- 
mendable ;  to  entreat  ^^  for  to  treat ;  and  to  learn^ 
for  to  teach  ^.  Even  adverbs  and  particles  have 
shared  the  general  fate.  Yea  and  nay  '^\  though 
still  words  in  the  language,  are  not  the  expressions 
of  affirmation  and  negation  as  formerly  ;  instatit- 
ly  ^^  we  never  use  for  earnestly,  nor  hitherto  ^^  for 

83  James,  v.  11.  ^'^  MaUh.  iii.  4. 

85  Exod.  xxxviii.  23.          ^^  g  Cor.  viii.  21.  ^7  Acts,  xix.  32. 

88  Acts,  X.  42.  89  John,  xx.  27. 

90  Matth.  ii.  16.  9i  1  Thess.  iv.  15. 

32  Matth.  XV.  32.     Luke,  xviii.  1.  ^M  Pet.  iii.  11. 

9'«  Heb.  x.  24.  95  Luke,  xx.  11. 

96  Psalm,  XXV.  4.     Common  Prayer.  ^'^  Matth.  v.  37. 

98  Luke,  vii.  4.  99  Job,  xxxviii.  11. 
VOL.  II.                        40 


318  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

thus  far.  Yet  this  was,  no  doubt,  its  original 
meaning,  and  is  more  conformable  to  etymology 
than  the  present  meaning  ;  hither  being  an  adverb 
of  place  and  not  of  time.  More  instances  might 
be  given,  if  necessary. 

Now,  to  employ  words  which,  though  still  re- 
maining in  the  language,  have  not  the  sanction  of 
present  use  for  the  sense  assigned  to  them,  cannot 
fail  to  render  the  passages  where  they  occur,  al- 
most always  obscure,  and  sometimes  ambiguous. 
But,  as  every  thing  which  may  either  mislead  the 
reader,  or  darken  the  meaning,  ought  carefully  to 
be  avoided  by  the  interpreter,  no  example, 
however  respectable,  will,  in  such  things,  au- 
thorize our  imitation.  An  alteration  here  im- 
plies nothing  to  the  disadvantage  of  preceding 
translators,  unless  it  can  be  supposed  to  detract 
from  them,  that  they  did  not  foresee  the  changes 
which,  in  after-times,  would  come  upon  the  lan- 
guage. They  employed  the  words  according"  to 
the  usage  which  prevailed  in  their  time.  The 
same  reason,  which  made  them  adopt  those  words 
then,  to  wit,  regard  to  perspicuity  by  conforming 
to  present  use,  would,  if  they  were  now  alive,  and 
revising  their  own  work,  induce  them  to  substi- 
tute others  in  their  place. 

§  7.  Another  case  in  which  a  translator  ought 
not  implicitl}^  to  follow  his  predecessors,  is  in  the 
use  of  words  now  become  obsolete.  "There  is 
little  or  no  scope  for  this  rule,  when  the  subject  is 
a  version  into  a  dead  language  like  the  Latin, 
w^hich,  except  in  the  instances  of  some  ecclesiastic 


p.  ii.J  DISSERTATIONS.  319 

terms,  such  as  those  above  taken  notice  of,  is  not 
liable  to  be  affected  by  the  changes  to  which  a 
living  tongue  is  continually  exposed.  The  very 
notion  of  a  dead  language  refers  us  to  a  period 
which  is  past,  whose  usages  are  now  over,  and 
may  therefore  be  considered  as  unchangeable. 
But,  in  living  languages,  wherein  use  gradually 
varies,  the  greatest  attention  ought  to  be  given 
to  what  obtains  at  present,  on  which  both  propri- 
ety and  perspicuity  must  depend.  Now,  with 
respect  to  our  common  version,  some  words  are 
disused  only  in  a  particular  signification,  others 
are  become  obsolete  in  every  meaning.  The 
former  ought  to  be  avoided,  in  such  acceptations 
only  as  are  not  now  favoured  by  use.  The  reason 
is  obvious ;  because  it  is  onl}^  in  such  cases  that 
they  suggest  a  false  meaning.  The  latter  ought  to 
be  avoided  in  every  case  wherein  they  do  not 
clearly  suggest  the  meaning.  I  admit  that  there 
are  certain  cases  in  which  even  an  obsolete  word 
may  clearly  suggest  the  meaning.  For,  first,  the 
sense  of  an  unusual  or  unknown  word  may  be  so 
ascertained  by  the  words  in  connection,  as  to 
leave  no  doubt  concerning  its  meaning ;  secondly, 
the  frequent  occurrence  of  some  words  in  the 
common  translation,  and  in  the  English  liturgy, 
must  hinder  us  from  considering  them,  though 
not  in  common  use,  as  unintelligible  to  persons 
acquainted  with  those  books.  The  danger,  there- 
fore, from  using  words  now  obsolete,  but  fre- 
quently occurring  in  the  English  translation,  is 
not  near  so  great,  as  the  danger  arising  trom  em- 
ploying words  not  obsolete,  in  an  obsolete  mean- 


320  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

ing,  or  a  meaning  which  they  formerly  had, 
but  have  not  at  present.  For  these  rarely  fail  to 
mislead. 

Further,  a  distinction  ought  to  be  made  in  ob- 
solete words,  between  those  which,  in  Scripture, 
occur  frequently,  and  whose  meaning  is  generally 
known,  and  those  which  occur  but  rarely,  and 
may,  therefore,  be  more  readily  misunderstood. 
The  use  of  old  words,  when  generally  understood, 
has,  in  such  a  book  as  the  Bible,  some  advantages 
over  newer  terms,  however  apposite.  A  version 
of  holy  writ  ought,  no  doubt,  above  all  things,  to 
be  simple  and  perspicuous;  but  still  it  ought  to 
appear,  as  it  really  is,  the  exhibition  of  a  work  of  a 
remote  age  and  distant  country.  When,  therefore, 
the  terms  of  a  former  version  are,  by  reason  of 
their  frequent  occurrence  there,  universally  under- 
stood, though  no  longer  current  with  us,  either 
in  conversation  or  in  writincr,  I  should  account 
them  preferable  to  familiar  terms.  Their  antiqui- 
ty renders  them  venerable.  It  adds  even  an  air 
of  credibility  to  the  narrative,  when  we  consider 
it  as  relating  to  the  actions,  customs,  and  opinions 
of  a  people  very  ancient,  and,  in  all  tlie  res- 
pects now  mentioned,  very  different  from  us. 
There  may,  therefore,  be  an  excess  in  the  familiar- 
ity of  the  style,  though,  whilst  we  are  just  to  the 
original,  there  can  be  no  excess  in  simplicit}^  and 
perspicuity.  It  is  for  this  reason,  that  I  have 
retained  sometimes,  as  emphatical,  the  interjec- 
tions lo !  and  behold !  which,  though  antiquated, 
are  well  understood ;  also  that  the  obsolete  word 
host  is,  in  preference  to  army,  employed  in  such 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  321 

phrases  as  the  host  of  heaven,  the  Lord  of  hosts  ; 
and  that  the  terms  tribulation,  damsel,  publican,  and 
a  few  others,  are  considered  as  of  more  dignity  than 
trotible,  girl,  toll-gatherer ;  and  therefore  worthy 
to  be  retained.  For  the  like  reason,  the  term  of 
salutation  hail,  though  now  totall}^  disused,  except 
in  poetry,  has  generally,  in  the  sacred  writings,  a 
much  better  effect  than  any  modern  form  which 
we  could  put  in  its  place.  To  these  we  may  add 
words  which  (though  not  properly  obsolete)  are 
hardly  ever  used,  except  when  the  subject,  in 
some  way  or  other,  concerns  religion.  Of  this 
•kind  are  the  wgrds  sin,  godly,  righteous,  and  some 
others,  with  their  derivatives.  Such  terms,  as 
they  are  neither  obscure  nor  ambiguous,  are  enti- 
tled to  be  preferred  to  more  familiar  words.  And 
if  the  plea  for  consecrated  words  extended  no  fur- 
ther, I  should  cheerfully  subscribe  to  it.  I  cannot 
agree  with  Dr.  Heylin,  who  declares  explicitly^°° 
against  the  last  mentioned  term,  though,  by  his 
own  explanation,  it,  in  many  cases,  conveys  more 
exactly  the  sense  of  the  original,  than  the  word 
just  which  he  prefers  to  it.  The  practice  of 
translators  into  other  languages,  where  they  are 
confined  by  the  genius  of  their  language,  is  of  no 
weight  with  us.  The  French  have  two  words, 
pouvoir  and  puissance  ;  the  English  word  poiver 
answers  to  both.  But,  because  we  must  make 
one  term  serve  for  both  theirs,  will  they,  in  com- 
plaisance to  us,  think  they  are  obliged  to  confine 
themselves  to  one  ?     And,  as  to  those  over-deli- 

1^'^  Theol.  Lect.  vol.  i.  p.  7. 


322  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

cate  ears,  to  which,  he  says,  cant  and  fanaticism 
have  tarnished  and  debased  the  words  righteous 
and  righteousness  ;  were  this  consideration  to 
influence  us,  in  the  choice  of  words,  we  should 
soon  find  that  this  would  not  be  the  only  sacrifice 
it  would  be  necessary  to  make.  It  is  but  too 
much  the  character  of  the  age  to  nauseate  what- 
ever, in  the  intercourse  of  society,  has  any  thing 
of  a  religious  or  moral  appearance,  a  disposition 
which  will  never  be  satisfied,  till  every  thing  se- 
rious and  devout  be  banished,  not  from  the  pre- 
cincts of  conversation  only,  but  from  the  language. 
But  to  return  :  when  words  totally  unsupported 
by  present  use,  occur  in  Scripture  but  rarely,  they 
are  accompanied  with  a  degree  of  obscurity  which 
renders  them  unfit  for  a  book  intended  for  the  in- 
struction of  all  men,  the  meanest  not  excepted. 
Of  this  class  are  the  words  leasing^  for  lies  ;  ravin, 
for  prey ;  bruit,  for  rumor ;  marvel  for  wonder ; 
ivorth  for  be ;  wot,  and  wist,  for  know  and  knew  ; 
to  beivray,  for  to  expose  ;  to  eschew,  for  to  avoid  ; 
to  skill,  for  to  be  knowing  in,  or  dexterous  at ;  to 
ivax,  for  to  become ;  to  lease,  for  to  lose ;  and  to 
lack,  for  to  need  or  be  wanting.  Terms  such  as 
some  of  these,  like  old  vessels,  are,  I  may  say,  so 
buried  in  rust,  as  to  render  it  difficult  to  discover 
their  use.  When  words  become  not  entirely  obso- 
lete, but  fall  into  low  or  ludicrous  use,  it  is  then 
also  proper  to  lay  them  aside.  Thus /o /A:,  for  peo- 
ple ;  trow,  for  think ;  seethe,  for  boil ;  sod,  and 
sodden,  for  boiled ;  score,  for  twenty  ;  twain,  for 


r.ii.]  DISSERTATIONS.  323 

two ;  clean  and  sore,  when  used  adverbially,  for 
entirely  and  very  much  ;  all  to,  allbeit,  and  howbeit, 
may  easily  be  given  up.  To  these  we  may  add 
the  words  that  differ  so  little  from  those  which 
have  still  a  currency,  that  it  would  appear  hke 
affectation  to  prefer  them  to  terms  equally  proper 
and  more  obvious.  Of  this  kind  are  mo^  for  more  ; 
strait  and  straitly,  for  strict  and  strictly ;  aliant, 
for  alien  ;  dtireth,  for  endureth ;  camp,  for  encamp ; 
minish,  for  diminish  ;  an  himgr ed,ior  hungry  ;  gar- 
ner, for  granary ;  trump,  for  trumpet ;  sith,  for 
since  ;  fet,  for  fetched ;  ensample,  for  example  ; 
mids,  for  midst.  I  shall  only  add,  that  when  old 
words  are  of  low  origin,  harsh  sound,  or  difficult 
pronunciation ;  or  when  they  appear  too  much 
like  learned  words  ;  familiar  terms,  if  equally  ap- 
posite, are  more  eligible.  For  this  reason,  the 
nouns  backslidings,  shamefacedness,  jeopardy,  and 
concupiscence,  miay  well  be  dispensed  with. 

Upon  the  whole,  there  is  still  some  danger  in 
retaining  words  which  are  become  obsolete, 
though  they  continue  to  be  intelligible.  Words 
hardly  sooner  contract  the  appearance  of  antiquity, 
by  being  abandoned  b}^  good  use,  than  they  are 
picked  up  as  lawful  prize  by  writers  in  burlesque, 
who,  by  means  of  them,  often  add  much  poignancy 
to  their  writings.  This  prostitution,  when  fre- 
quent, produces  an  association  in  the  minds  of 
readers,  the  reverse  of  that  which  originally  ac- 
companied them.  Hence  it  is  that,  though  nothing 
is  better  suited  to  the  seriousness  and  importance 
of  the    subject   of  holy   writ,   than    solemnity    of 


324  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

style ;  nothing  is,  at  the  same  time,  more  hazard- 
ous, as  no  species  of  diction  borders  on  the  ludi- 
crous oftener,  than  the  solemn.  Let  it  suffice, 
therefore,  if,  without  venturing  far  from  the  style 
of  conversation,  in  quest  of  a  more  dignified  elo- 
cution, we  can  unite  gravity  with  simplicity  and 
purity,  which  commonly  secure  perspicuit}^ 
With  these  qualities  there  can  be  no  material 
defect  in  the  expression.  The  sprightly,  the 
animated,  the  nervous,  would  not,  in  such  a  work, 
be  beauties,  but  blemishes.  They  would  look 
too  much  like  meretricious  ornaments,  when  com- 
pared with  the  artless,  the  free,  yet  unassuming, 
manner  of  the  sacred  writers. 

§  8.  But,  if  it  be  of  consequence  to  avoid 
antiquated  words,  it  is  not  less  so  to  avoid  anti- 
quated phrases,  and  an  antiquated  construction. 
No  writing  in  our  language,  as  far  as  I  know,  is 
less  chargeable  with  idiomatical  phrases,  vulgar- 
isms, or  any  peculiarities  of  expression,  than  the 
common  translation  of  the  Bible ;  and  to  this  it 
is,  in  a  great  measure,  imputable,  that  the  diction 
remains  still  so  perspicuous,  and  that  it  is  univer- 
sally accounted  superior  to  that  of  any  other 
English  book  of  the  same  period.  But,  though 
remarkably  pure,  in  respect  of  style,  we  cannot 
suppose  that  no  idiomatical  phrases  should  have 
escaped  the  translators,  especially  when  we  con- 
sider the  frequency  of  such  phrases  in  the^  writings 
of  their  contemporaries.  Yet,  in  all  the  four 
Gospels,  I  recollect  only  two  or  three  which  come 
under  that  denomination.       These  are,  The  .good 


p.  ii.J  DISSERTATIONS.  325 

man  of  the  house,  They  laughed  him  to  scorn,  and 
They  cast  the  same  in  his  teeth  ;  expressions  for 
which  the  interpreters  had  not  the  apology  that 
may  be  pleaded  in  defence  of  some  idioms  in  the 
Old  Testament  history,  that  they  are  literal 
translations  from  the  original  ^°^  That  the  Eng- 
lish construction  has  undergone  several  altera- 
tions since  the  establishment  of  the  Protestant 
religion  in  England,  it  would  be  easy  to  evince. 
Some  verbs  often  then  used  impersonally,  and 
some  reciprocally,  are  hardly  ever  so  used  at  pre- 
sent. It pitieth  them^^^,  would  never  be  said  now. 
It  repented  hiirk^^^,  may  possibly  be  found  in  mo- 
dern language,  but  never  he  repented  himself^^'^. 
There  is  a  difference  also  in  the  use  of  the  pre- 
positions. In^^^  was  then  sometimes  used  for 
upon,  and  u?ito  instead  of /or  ^°^  Of^vas  frequent- 
ly used  before  the  cause  or  the  instrument,  where 
we  now  invariably  use  by^'^^ ;  of  was  also  em- 
ployed, in  certain  cases,  where  present  use  requires 
off  or  from  ^^^.  Like  differences  might  be  observed 
in  the  pronouns.  One  thing  is  certain,  that  the 
old  usages  in  construction,  oftener  occasioned  am- 
biguity than  the  present,  which  is  an  additional 
reason  for  preferring  the  latter. 

101  Matth.  XX.    11.    OLxoSa67iOTOV.    ix.    24.     xarsyeXuiv  avrov. 
xxvii.  44.      To  avTO  wraLdi^ov  avrio. 

10^  Psal.  cii.  14.     Common  Prayer. 
lo-i  Genesis,  vi.  6.  ^""^  Matth.  xxvii.  3. 

i"Hlatth.  vi.   10.  losjohn,  xv.  7. 

107  Matth.  i.   18.  los^atth.  vii.   16. 

VOL.    II.  41 


326  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

§  9.  Finally,  in  regard  to  what  may  be  called 
technical^  or,  in  Simon's  phrase,  consecrated  terms, 
our  translators,  though  not  entirely  free  from 
such,  have  been  comparatively  sparing  of  them. 
In  this  they  have  acted  judiciously.  A  technical 
style  is  a  learned  style.  That  of  the  Scriptures, 
especially  of  the  historical  part,  is  the  reverse ; 
it  is  plain  and  familiar.  If  we  except  a  few  terms, 
such  as  afigel,  apostle,  baptism,  heresy,  niyster% 
which,  after  the  example  of  other  Western 
churches,  the  English  have  adopted  from  the 
Vulgate ;  and  for  adopting  some  of  which,  as  JUas 
been  observed,  good  reasons  might  be  offered ; 
the  instances  are  but  few  wherejii  the  common 
name  has  been  rejected,  in  preference  to  a  learned 
and  peculiar  term. 

Nay,  some  learned  terms,  which  have  ■  been 
admitted  into  the  liturgy,  at  least  into  the  rubric, 
the  interpreters  have  not  thought  proper  to  m-^ 
troduce  into  the  Scriptures.  Thus,  the  words, 
the  nativity,  for  Christ's  birth,  advent,  for  his 
coming,  epiphany,  for  his  manifestation  to  the 
Magians  by  the  star,  do  very  well  in  the  titles  of 
the  several  divisions  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  being  there  a  sort  of  proper  names  for  de- 
noting the  whole  circumstantiated  event,  or  rather 
the  times  destined  for  the  celebration  of  the  festi- 
vals, and  are  convenient,  as  they  save  circumlocu- 
tion ;  but  would  by  no  means  suit  the  simple  and 
familiar  phraseology  of  the  sacred  historians,  who 
never  affect  uncommon,  and  especially  learned 
words.  Thus,  in  the  titles  of  the  books  of  Moses, 
the  Greek  names  of  the  Septuagint,  Genesis^  Exo- 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  327 

diis,  Leviticus^  Deuterotiomy,  are  not  unfitly  preserv- 
ed in  modern  translations,  and  are  become  the 
proper  names  of  the  books.  But  where  the 
Greek  word  genesis,  which  signifies  generation, 
occurs  in  that  ancient  version  of  the  book 
so  named,  it  would  have  been  very  improper 
to  transfer  it  into  a  modern  translation,  and  to' 
say,  for  example,  "  This  is  the  genesis  of  the 
"  heavens  and  the  earth  ^°l"  In  like  manner,  Ex- 
odus, which  signifies  departure,  answers  very  well 
as  a  proper  name  of  the  second  book,  which  be- 
gins with  an  account  of  the  departure  of  the 
Israelites  out  of  Egypt ;  but  it  would  be  down-  s 
right  pedantry  to  introduce  the  term  exodus,  ex-  \ 
ody,  or  exod  (for  in  all  these  shapes  some  have 
affected  to  usher  it  into  the  language,)  into  the 
body  of  the  history. 

I  remember  but  one  passage  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  our  translators  have  preferred  a 
scholastic  to  the  vulgar  name,  where  both  signi- 
fied the  same  thing  ;  so  that  there  was  no  plea 
from  necessity.  The  expression  alluded  to  is, 
"  To  whom  he  showed  himself  alive  after  his  pas- 
"  52072 "°."  Passion,  in  ordinary  speech,  means  sole- 
ly a  fit  of  anger,  or  any  violent  commotion  of  the 
mind.  It  is  only  in  theological  or  learned  use  that 
it  means  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  The  Evange- 
list wrote  to  the  people  in  their  own  dialect. 
Besides,  as  he  wrote  for  the  conviction  of  infidels, 
as  well  as  for  the  instruction  of  believers,  it  is 
not  natural  to  suppose  that  he  would  use  words  or 

105  Gen.  ii.  4.  »io  Acts,  i.  3. 


328  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xi. 

phrases,  in  a  particular  acceptation,  which  could 
be  known  only  to  the  latter.     His  expression,  fis- 
za  TO   Ttad'eLv   avTov,  which  is   literally,  after  his 
sufferings,  is  plain  and  unambiguous,  and  might 
have  been  said  of  any  man  who  had  undergone 
the  like  fate.     Such  is  constantly  the  way  of  the 
sacred   writers  ;  nor   is    any   thing,   in  language, 
more  repugnant  to  their  manner,  than  the  use  of 
what  is  called  consecrated  words.     I  admit,  at  the 
same  time,  that  post  passionem  stiam,  in  the  Vul- 
gate, is  unexceptionable,  because  it  suits  the  com- 
mon acceptation  of  the  word  passio  in  the  Latin 
laiiguage.     Just  so,  the   expression  accipiens  cali- . 
cem,  in  the  Vulgate  "^,  is  natural  and  proper.    Calix 
is    a   common   name  for  cup,  and  is  so   used   in 
several   places   of  that  version  :   whereas,  taking 
the  chalice,  as  the  Rhemish  translators  render  it, 
presents  us    with    a   technical   term   not   strictly 
proper,  inasmuch  as  it  suggests  the  previous  con- 
secration of  the  vessel  to  a  special  purpose,  by 
certain   ceremonies,   an    idea    not   suggested    by 
either  the  Greek  noT-qgLov,  or  the  Latin  calix.     I 
do  not  mean,  however,  to  controvert  the  propriety 
of  adopting  an  unfamiliar  word,  when  necessary 
for  expressing  what  is   of  an  unfamiliar,   or,  per- 
haps, singular  nature.    Thus,  to  denote  the  change 
produced  on    our   Saviour's   body,   when   on  the 
mount  with  the   three    disciples,   Peter,  and  the 
two  sons  of  Zebedee,  a  more  apposite  word  than 
transfigured  could  not   have   been  found.      The 
English  word  transformed,  which  comes  nearest, 

"1  Matth.  xxvL  27. 


p.  n.]  DISSERTATIONS.  329 

and  is  more  familiar  than  the  other,  would  have 
expressed  too  much. 

§  10.  To  conclude,  the  reasons  which  appear 
sufficient  to  justify  a  change  of  the  words  and 
expressions  of  even  the  most  respectable  prede- 
cessors in  the  business  of  translating,  are,  when 
there  is  ground  to  think,  that  the  meaning  of  the 
author  can  be  either  more  exactly,  or  more  per- 
spicuously, rendered  ;  and  when  his  manner,  that 
is,  when  the  essential  qualities  of  his  style,  not 
the  sound  or  the  etymology  of  his  words,  can  be 
-more  adequately  represented.  For,  to  one  or 
other  of  these,  all  the  above  cases  will  be  found 
reducible. 


Bifii^jJettatCon  tfie  3CijjrlCtti» 


An  Account  of  what  is  attempted  in  the  Translation  of  the 
Gospels,  and  in  the  J^otes  here  offered  to  the  Public. 

The  things  which  will  be  treated  in  this  Disserta- 
tion may,  for  the  sake  of  order,  be  classed  under 
the  five  following  heads  ;  the  first  comprehends 
all  that  concerns  the  essential  qualities  of  the  ver- 
sion ;  the  second,  what  relates  to  the  readings 
(where  there  is  a  diversity  of  reading  in  the  orig- 
inal) which  are  here  preferre'd  ;  the  third  contains 
a  few  remarks  on  the  parti^ilar  dialect  of  our  laur 
ffuase  employed  in  this  version  ;  the  fourth,  what 
regards  the  outward  form  in  which  it  is  exhibited  j 
and  the  fifth,  some  account  of  the  notes  with 
which  it  is  accompanied. 


PART  I. 


THE    ESSENTIAL    QUALITIES    OF    THE    VERSION. 

The  three  principal  objects  to  be  attended  to, 
by  every  translator,  were  explained  in  a  former 
Dissertation  \     It  is,  perhaps,  unnecessary  to  say, 

1  Diss.  X.  Part  I. 


r.  uj  DISSERTATIONS.  331 

that  to  them  I  have  endeavoured  to  give  a  con- 
stant attention.  It  is  not,  however,  to  be  dissem- 
bled, that  even  those  principal  objects  themselves 
sometimes  interfere.  And,  though  an  order,  in 
respect  of  importance,  when  the}^  are  compared 
together,  has  been  also  laid  down,  which  will,  in 
many  cases,  determine  the  preference  ;  it  will  not 
always  determine  it.  I  may  find  a  word,  for  ex- 
ample, which  hits  the  sense  of  the  author  pre- 
cisely, but  which,  not  being  in  familiar  use,  is 
obscure.  Though,  therefore,  in  itself,  a  just  ex- 
pression of  the  sentiment,  it  may  not  clearly  con- 
vey the  sentin>ent  to  many  readers,  because  they 
are  unacquainted  with  it.  It  is,  therefore,  but  ill 
fitted  to  represent  the  plain  and  familiar  manner 
of  the  sacred  writers,  or,  indeed,  to  answer  the 
great  end  of  translation,  to  convey  distinctly,  to 
the  reader,  the  meaning  of  the  original.  Yet 
there  may  be  a  hazard,  on  the  other  hand,  that  a 
term  more  perspicuous,  but  less  apposite,  may 
convey  somewhat  of  a  different  meaning,  an  error 
more  to  be  avoided  than  the  other.  Recourse  to 
circumlocution  is  sometimes  necessary  ;  for  the 
terms  of  no  two  languages  can  be  always  made  to 
correspond  ;  but  frequent  recourse  to  this  mode 
of  rendering,  effaces  the  native  simplicity  found  in 
the  original,  and,  in  some  measure,  disfigures  the 
work.  Though,  therefore,  in  general,  an  obscure, 
is  preferable  to  an  unfaithful,  translation,  there  is 
a  degree  of  precision,  in  the  correspondence  of 
the  terms,  which  an  interpreter  ought  to  dispense 
with,  rather  than  involve  his  version  in  such  dark- 
ness, as  will  render  it  useless  to  the  generality  of 


332  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

readers.  This  shows  sufficiently,  that  no  rule 
will  universally  answer  the  translator's  purpose  ; 
but  that  he  must  often  carefully  balance  the  de- 
grees of  perspicuity  on  one  hand,  against  those 
of  precision  on  the  other,  and  determine,  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  concerning  their 
comparative  importance.  I  acknowledge  that,  in 
several  instances,  the  counterpoise  may  be  so 
equal,  that  the  most  judicious  interpreters  may  be 
divided  in  opinion;  nay,  the  same  interpreter 
may  hesitate  long  in  forming  a  decision,  or  even 
account  it  a  matter  of  indifference  to  which  side 
he  inclines.* 

§  2.  I  SHALL  only  say,  in  general,  that,  however 
much  a  word  may  be  adapted  to  express  the 
sense,  it  is  a  strong  objection  against  the  use  of  it, 
that  it  is  too  fine  a  word,  too  learned,  or  too  mod- 
ern. For,  though  in  the  import  of  the  term,  there 
should  be  a  suitableness  to  the  principal  idea 
intended  to  be  conveyed,  there  is  an  unsuitableness 
in  the  associated  or  secondary  ideas,  which  never 
fail  to  accompany  such  terms.  These  tend  to  fix 
on  the  Evangelists  the  imputation  of  affecting 
elegance,  depth  in  literature  or  science,  or,  at 
least,  a  modish  and  flowery  phraseology,  than 
which  nothing  can  be  more  repugnant  to  the 
genuine  character  of  their  style,  a  style  emi- 
nently natural,  simple,  and  familiar.  The  senti- 
ment of  Jaques  le  Fevre  d'Estaplcs  ^  whicli  shows, 

2  An  old  French  commentator,  who  published  a  version  of 
the  Gospels  into  Latin  in  1523  ;  his  words  are  :  "  Ce  que  plu- 
"  sieurs  estiment  elegance,  est  inelegance  et  parole  fardee 
*'  devant  Dieu." 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  333 

at  once,  his  good  taste  and  knowledge  of  the  sub- 
ject, is  here  entirely  apposite  :  "  What  many  think 
"  elegance  is,  in  God's  account,  inelegance,  and 
"  painted  Avords." 

§  3.  On  the  other  hand,  a  bad  effect  is  also  pro- 
duced by  words,  which  are  too  low  and  vulgar. 
The  danger  here  is  not,  indeed,  so  great,  provided 
there  be  nothing  ludicrous  in  the  expression, 
which  is  sometimes  the  case  with  terms  of  this 
denomination.  When  things  themselves  are  of  a 
kind  which  gives  few  occasions  of  introducing 
the  mention  of  ^lem  into  the  conversation  of  the 
higher  ranks,  and  still  fewer  of  naming  them  in 
books,  their  names  are  considered  as  partaking  in 
the  meanness  of  the  use,  and  of  the  things  signified. 
But  this  sort  of  vulgarity  seems  not  to  have  been 
regarded  by  the  inspired  authors.  When  there 
was  a  just  occasion  to  speak  of  the  thing,  they 
appear  never  to  have  been  ashamed  to  employ  the 
name  by  which  it  was  commonly  distinguished. 
They  did  not  recur,  as  modern  delicacy  prompts 
us  to  do,  to  periphrasis,  unusual,  or  figurative  ex- 
pressions, but  always  adopted  such  terms  as  most 
readily  suggested  themselves.  There  is  nothing 
more  indelicate,  than  an  unseasonable  display  of 
delicacy ;  for  which  reason,  the  naked  simplicity 
wherewith  the  sacred  penmen  express  themselves 
on  particular  subjects,  has  much  more  modesty 
in  it  than  the  artificial,  but  transjDarent,  disguises 

VOL.  II.  42 


334  PRELIMINARY  [u.  xii. 

which,  on  like  occasions,  would  be  employed  by 
modern  writers  ^ 

A  certain  correctness  of  taste,  as  well  as  acute- 
ness  of  discernment,  taught  a  late  ingenious  au- 
thor ^  to  remark  this  wonderful  union  of  plainness 
and  chastity  in  the  language  of  the  Bible,  which  a 
composer  of  these  days,  in  any  European  tongue, 
would  in  vain  attempt  to  imitate.  Yet,  it  is  mani- 
fest, that  it  is  not  to  justness  of  taste,  but  to  puri- 
ty of  mind  in  the  sacred  authors,  that  this  happy 
singularity  in  their  writings  ought  to  be  ascribed. 
This,  however,  is  an  evidence  that  they  did  not 


'  I  can  scarcely  give  a  better  illustration  of  this  remark  than 
in  the  correction  proposed  by  Dr.  Delany,  of  the  phrase  him 
that  pisseth  against  the  wall,  which  occurs  sometimes  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  which,  he  thinks,  should  be  changed  into 
him  that  watereth  against  the  wall.  I  am  surprised  that  a  cor- 
rection like  this  should  have  the  approbation  of  so  excellent 
a  writer  as  the  bishop  of  Waterford.  (See  the  preface  t-o  his 
Version  of  the  Minor  Prophets.)  To  me  the  latter  expression 
is  much  more  exceptionable  than  the  former.  The  former 
may  be  compared  to  the  simplicity  of  a  savage  who  goes  naked 
without  appearing  to  know  it,  or  ever  thinking  of  clothes ;  the 
other  is  like  the  awkward  and  unsuccessful  attempt  of  an  Euro- 
pean, to  hide  the  nakedness  of  which,  by  the  very  attempt,  he 
shews  himself  to  be  both  conscious  and  ashamed.  The  same 
offensive  idea  is  suggested  by  the  word  which  Delany  proposes, 
as  is  conveyed  by  the  common  term ;  but  it  is  suggested  in  so 
affected  a  manner,  as  necessarily  fixes  a  reader's  attention  upon 
it,  and  shows  it  to  have  been  particularly  thought  of  by  the 
writer.  Can  any  critic  seriously  think  that  more,  is  necessary, 
in  this  case,  than  to  say,  Every  male  ? 
■*  Rousseau. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  335 

consider  it  as  mean  or  unbecoming,  to  call  low  or 
common  things  by  their  common  names.  But 
there  are  other  sorts  of  vulgarisms  in  language, 
with  which  they  are  never  chargeable,  the  use  of 
such  terms  as  we  call  cant  words,  which  belong 
peculiarly  to  particular  professions,  or  classes 
of  men,  and  contemptuous  or  ludicrous  expres- 
sions, such  as  are  always  accompanied  with  ideas 
of  low  mirth  and  ridicule. 

§  4.  Of  both  the  extremes  in  language  above 
mentioned,  I  shall  give  examples  from  an  anony- 
mous English  translator  in  1729,  whose  version, 
upon  the  whole,  is  the  most  exceptionable  of  all 
I  am  acquainted  with,  in  any  language  ;  and  yet  it 
is  but  doing  justice  to  the  author  to  add  that,  in 
rendering  some  passages,  he  has  been  more  fortu- 
nate than  much  better  translators.  For  brevity's 
sake,  I  shall  here  only  mention  the  words  I  think 
censurable,  referring  to  the  margin  for  the  places. 
Of  learned  words  the  following  are  a  specimen  : 
verbose^  loquaciousness^,  advent\  chasm^,  grumes^, 
steriP% phe7iomena^\  consolated^\  investigate^^  in- 
nate ",  saliva  ^^ ;  concerning  which,  and  some 
others  of  the  same  kind,  his  critical  examiner,  Mr. 
Twell,  says  justly,  that  they  are  unintelligible  to 
the  ignorant,  and  offensive  to  the  knowing.     His 

5  Matth.  vi.  7.  «  Ibid.  "^  xxiv.  27. 

8  Luke,  xvi.  26.  ^  xxii.  44.  lo  i.  17.      *     ^  xii.  56. 

12  Acts,  XV.  32.  1^  xvii.  22. 

^''  Eph.  iv.  18.  ^^  John,  ix.  6. 


336  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

fine  words  and  fashionable  phrases,  which,  on  ac- 
count of  their  affinity,  I  shall  throw  together,  the 
following  may  serve  to  exemplify:  detachment '^^, 
foot-fruards  ^\  brigue  '^  chicanery  ^^  Zacharias,  we 
are  told  ^\  vented  his  divine  enthusiasm ;  that  is, 
when  translated  into  common  speech,  prophesied. 
A  later  translator,  or  rather  paraphrast,  is  not 
much  happier  in  his  expression,  he  was  seized 
with  a  divine  afflatus,  here  spoken  of  as  a  disease. 
Zaccheus,  for  chief  of  the  publicans,  is  made  col- 
lector-general of  the  customs  ^^.  Simon  Magus, 
in  his  hands,  becomes  the  plenipotentiary  of 
God^^.  Jesus  Christ  is  titled  guarantee  of  the 
alliance  ^^  and  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  Lord  of  the 
celestial  militia  ^^  And,  to  avoid  the  flatness  of 
plain  prose,  he  sometimes  gives  a  poetical  turn  to 
the  expression.  Before  the  cock  crow,  becomes 
in  his  hands.  Before  the  cock  proclaims  the 
day  ^\ 

The  foppery  of  these  last  expressions  is,  if  pos- 
sible, more  insufferable  than  the  pedantry  of  the 
first.  They  are,  besides,  so  far  frcm  conveying 
the  sense  of  the  author,  that  they  all,  less  or  more, 
misrepresent  it.  As  to  low  and  ludicrous  terms, 
there  is  someJimes  a  greater  coincidence  in  these 
with  quaint  and  modish  words,  than  one  at  first 
would  imagine.  It  would  not  be  easy  to  assign  a 
motive  for  rendering  oLxodsoTZOTrjs  yeoman  ^^  but  it 

i6Matth«ii.  J6.  ^^  xxvii.  27.  is  j  Thess.  v.  13. 

13   1  Tim.  vi.  4.  ^o  Luke,  i.  67.  21  xix.  2. 

22  Acts,  viii.  10.  23  Heb.  vii.  22.  ^^  James,  v.  4. 

25  Luke,  xxii.  34.  26  Matth.  xiii.  27. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  337 

is  still  worse  to  translate  'o6ol  tijv  d^alaaaav  sgya- 
tovzai  supercargoes  -\  'agna^iv  raparees  ^^  which 
he  explains  in  the  margin  to  mean  kidnappers, 
and  ns&vovTov  sots  ^^.  lam  surprised  he  has  not 
found  a  place  for  sharpers,  gamblers,  and  swind- 
lers, fit  company,  in  every  sense,  for  his  sots  and 
raparees.  rXacicioxofxov  is  distended  into  a  bank^^, 
and  xAfTTTT^?  dwindles  into  a  pilferer  ^^ :  tijv  %agav 
Tov  xvQLov  aov  is  degraded  into  thy  master''s  diver- 
sions^^, and  cctvos  is  swoln  into  a  consort  of  praise^^. 
The  laudable  and  successful  importunity  of  the 
two  blind  men  who,  notwithstanding  the  checks 
they  received  from  the  multitude,  persisted  in 
their  application  to  Jesus  for  relief,  is  contemptu- 
ously denoted  bawling  out  ^\  When  we  are  told 
that  our  Lord  silenced,  £(pifxa(js,  the  Saddiicees, 
this  author  acquaints  us  that  he  dumbfounded 
them^\  In  short,  what  by  magnifying,  what  by 
diminishing,  what  by  distorting  and  disfiguring, 
he  has,  in  many  places,  burlesqued  the  original. 
For  answering  this  bad  purpose,  the  extremes  of 
cant  and  bombast  are  equally  well  adapted.  The 
excess,  in  the  instances  now  given,  is  so  manifest, 
as  entirely  to  supersede  both  argument  and  illus- 
tration. 

§  5.  But,  in  regard  to   the  use  of  what  may  be 
called  learned  words,  it  must  be  owned,  after  all, 


27  Rev.  xviii.  17.        ^s  i  Cor.  v.  10.        29  Matth.  xxiv.  49. 
30  John,  xii.  6.  3i  j^ij,  32  Matth.  xxv.  21. 

»3  xxi.  16.  81  XX.  31.  5^  xxii.  34. 


338  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

that  it  is  not  easy,  in  every  case,  to  fix  the  bounda- 
ries.    We  sometimes  find  classed  under  that  de- 
nomination, all   the  words   of  Greek   and   Latin 
etymology,  which  are  not  current  among  the  in- 
ferior orders  of  the  people.     Yet  I  acknowledge 
that,  if  we  were  rigidly  to  exclude  all   such  terms, 
we  should  be  too  often  obliged,  either  to  adopt  cir- 
cumlocution, or  to  express  the  sentiment  weakly 
and  improperly.    There  are  other  disadvantages,  to 
be  remarked   afterwards,  which  might  result  from 
the  exclusion  of  every  term   that  may  be  compre- 
hended in  the  definition  above   given.     The  com- 
mon   translation,   if   we    except    the    consecrated 
terms,  as   some  call  them,  which   are  not  many,  is 
universally  admitted  to  be  written  in  a  style   that 
is  not  only  natural,  but  easily  understood  by  the 
people  :  yet,  in  the  common  translation,  there  are 
many  words  which  can  hardly  be  supposed  ever 
to    have    been   quite    familiar   among   the   lower 
ranks.     There  is,  however,  one  advantage  possess- 
ed by  that  version,  over  every   other  book  com- 
posed   at   that  period,   which    is,   that   from   the 
universality  of  its  use,  and  (we  may  now  add)  its 
long  continuance,  it  must  have  greatly  contributed 
to  give  a  currency  to  those  words  which   are  fre- 
quently  employed   in  it.     Now,  it  would  be  ab- 
surd, in  an  interpreter  of  this  age,  to  expect  a 
similar  effect  from  any  private  version.     A  new 
translation,  even  though  it  were  authorized  by  the 
public,  would   not  have    the   same  advantage   at 
present,  when  our  language  is  in  a  more  advanced 
stage. 


p.  ,.]  DISSERTATIONS.  339 

§  6.  I  SHOULD  not  be  surprized,  that  a  reader 
not  accustomed  narrowly  to  attend  to  these  mat- 
ters, were  disposed,  at  first  hearing,  to  question 
the  fact,  that  there  are  many  words  in  the  vulgar 
translation  which  were  not  in  common  use  at  the 
time  among  the  lower  orders.  But  I  am  persua- 
ded that  a  little  reflection  must  soon  convince 
him  of  it  Abstracted  from  those  terms  which 
have  been  transferred  from  the  original  languages, 
because  there  were  no  corresponding  names  in 
our  tongue,  such  as  phylactery,  ietrarch,  syna- 
gogue, proselyte,  centurion,  quaternion,  legion, 
tliere  are  many  in  the  English  Bible,  which  cannot 
be  considered  as  having  been,  at  that  time,  level 
to  the  meanest  capacities.  They  are  scarcely  so 
yet,  notwithstanding  all  the  advantage  which 
their  occurring  in  that  translation  has  given  them. 
Of  such  words  I  shall  give  a  pretty  large  speci- 
men in  the  margin^^     Nor  can  it  be  said  of  those 

*s  FirsU  of  nouns  :  scribe,  disciple,  parable,  epistle,  infidel, 
matrix,  lunatic,  exile,  exorcist,  suppliant,  residue,  genealopy, 
appetite,  audience,  pollution,  perdition,  partition,  potentate, 
progenitor,  liberality,  occurrent,  immutability,  pre-eminence, 
remission,  diversity,  fragment,  abjects,  frontier,  tradition,  im- 
portunity, concupiscence,  redemption,  intercession,  superscrip- 
tion, inquisition,  insurrection,  communion,  instructer,  mediator, 
exactor,  intercessor,  benefactor,  malefactor,  prognosticator, 
ambassador,  ambassage,  ambushment,  meditation,  ministration, 
administration,  abomination,  consummation,  convocation,  con- 
stellation, consolation,  consultation,  acceptation,  communica- 
tion, disputation,  cogitation,  estimation,  operation,  divination, 
vocation,  desolation,  tribulation,  regeneration,  propitiation,  jus- 


340  PRELIMINARY"  [d.  x.i. 

there  specified,  that  more  familiar  terms  could  not 
have  been  found  equally  expressive.  For,  though 
this  may  be  true  of  some  of  them,  it  is  not  true 
of  them  all.  Calling  is  equivalent  to  vocation, 
comfort  to  consolation,  destruction  to  perdition, 
forgive7iess  to  remission,  defilemefit  to  pollution, 
almighty  to  omnipotent,  enlightened  to  illuminated, 
watchful  to  \\^\\cmi,  delightful  to  delectable,  un- 
changeable to  immutable,  heavenly  to  celestial, 
and  earthly  to  terrestrial.  Nay,  the  first  six  in 
the  marginal  list  might  have  been  not  badly  sup- 
plied by  the  more  homely  terms,  writer^  scholar^ 
comparison^  letter^  unbeliever^  ivomb.  Yet,  I  would 
not  be  understood,  by  this  remark,  as  intending 
to  throw  any  blame  upon  the  translators,  for  the 
choice  they  have  sometimes  made  of  words  which, 
though  not  obscure,  were  not  the  most  familiar 
that  it  was  possible  to  find.  There  are  several 
reasons,  to  be  given  immediately,  which  may 
justly  determine  the  translator,  on  some  occasions, 
to  desert  the  common  rule  of  adopting  always 
the  most  obvious  words.     At  the  same  time  there 

tification,  sanctification,  salutation,  interpretation,  supplica- 
tion, exaction,  unction.  Second,  of  adjectives :  barbed,  cir- 
cumspect, conversant,  extinct,'vigilant,  inordinate,  delectable, 
tributary,  impotent,  magnificnl,  immutable,  innumerable,  ce- 
lestial, incorruptible,  terrestrial,  omnipotent.  Third,  of  verbs 
and  participles :  laud,  distil,  remit,  adjure,  implead,  esti- 
mate, ascend,  descend,  frustrate,  disannul,  reverse,  meditate, 
premeditate,  predestinate,  consort,  amerce,  transferred,  trans- 
figured, illuminated,  consecrated,  translated,  incensed,  mol- 
lilied. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  341 

are  certain  excesses  in  this  way,  whereof  I  have 
also  given  eicamples,  into  which  a  judicious  inter- 
preter will  never  be  in  danger  of  falling.  The 
reasons  which  ought,  on  the  other  hand,  to  deter- 
mine a  translator,  not  to  conffne  himself  to  the 
words  which  are  current  in  the  familiar  tattle  of 
the  lower  ranks  in  society,  are  as  follows  : 

§  7.  First,  in  all  compositions  not  in  the  form 
of  dialogue,  even  the  simplest,  there  is  some 
superiority,  in  the  style,  to  the  language  of  con- 
versation, among  the  common  people  ;  and  even 
the  common  people  themselves  understand  many 
words,  which,  far  from  having  any  currency 
among  them,  never  enter  into  their  ordinary  talk. 
This  is  particularly  the  case  with  those  of  them 
who  have  had  any  sort  of  education,  were  it  but 
the  lowest.  One  ought,  therefore,  to  consider 
accurately  the  degree  of  the  uncommonness  of 
the  term,  before  it  be  rejected  :  as  it  may  not  be 
easy  to  supply  its  place  with  one  more  familiar, 
and  equally  apposite.  Unnecessary  circumlocu- 
tions are  cumbersome,  and  ought  always  to  be 
avoided.  They  are  unfriendly  alike  to  simplicity 
and  to  energy,  and  sometimes  even  to  propriety 
and  perspicuity. 

§  8.  Secondly,  there  are  cases  wherein  some 
things  may  be  done,  nay,  ought  to  be  done,  by  a 
translator,  for  the  sake  of  variety.  I  acknowledge 
that  this  is  a  subordinate  consideration,  and  that 
variety  is  never  to  be  purchased  at  the  expense  of 

TOL.  n.  43 


342  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii 

either  perspicuity,  or  simplicity.  But  even  the 
sacred  historians,  though  eminently  simple  and 
perspicuous,  do  not  alwaj's  confine  themselves  to 
the  same  words  in  expressing  the  same  thoughts. 
Not  that  there  appears  in  their  manner  any  aim 
at  varying  the  expression  ;  but,  it  is  well  known 
that,  without  such  an  aim,  the  same  subject,  even 
in  conversation,  is  hardly  ever  twice  spoken  of 
precisely  in  the  same  words.  To  a  certain  degree 
this  is  a  consequence  of  that  quality  I  have  had 
occasion  oftener  than  once  to  observe  in  them,  a 
freedom  from  all  solicitude  about  their  language. 
Whereas  an  unvarying  recourse  to  the  same  words 
for  expressing  the  same  thoughts,  would,  in  fact, 
require  one  to  be  solicitous  about  uniformity,  and 
uncommonly  attentive  to  it.  But  in  the  use  of 
the  terms  of  principal  consequence,  in  which  the 
association  between  the  words  and  the  ideas  is 
much  stronger,  they  are  pretty  uniform  in  recur- 
ring to  the  same  words,  though  they  are  not  so  in 
matters  of  little  moment.  Yet  in  these  the  variety 
is  no  greater  than  is  perfectly  natural  in  men 
whose  thoughts  are  engrossed  by  their  subject, 
and  who  never  search  about  in  quest  of  words. 
Now  it  is  only  in  consequence  of  some  attention 
to  language  in  a  translator,  that  he  is  capable  of 
doing  justice  to  this  inattention,  if  I  may  so  de- 
nominate it,  of  his  author. 

§  9.    Thirdly,   it   was  remarked  before  %  that 
though  there  is  a  sameness  of  idiom  in  the  writers 

»7  Diss.  I.  Part  II. 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  S43 

of  the  New  Testament,  particularly  the  Evangel- 
ists, there  is  a  diversity  in  their  styles.      Hence  it 
arises,  that  different  terms  are  sometimes  employ- 
ed, by  the  different  historians,  in  relating  the  same 
fact.      But,   as   this   circumstance  has  not   much 
engaged    the    attention    of    interpreters,   it   often 
happens  that,  in  the   translations  of  the  Gospels, 
(for  this  is  not  peculiar  to   any   one  translation,) 
there   appears   in   the    version,   a   greater  coinci- 
dence in  the  style  of  the  Evangelists,  than  is  found 
in  the  original.     Now  there  are  very  good  reasons 
to  determine  us   to  avoid,  as   much  as  possible,  a 
Sameness  whicb-is  not  authorized  by  the  original. 
There   are  cases,  I  own,  in  which   it  is   unavoida- 
ble.    It  often  happens  that  two  or  more  words,  in 
the  language  of  the  author,  are  synonymous,  and 
may   therefore   be  used  indiscriminately,  for   ex- 
pressing the  same  thing,  when  it  is  impossible  to 
find  more  than  one,  in  the  language   of  the   trans- 
lator, which  can   be  used  with  propriety.     When 
our  Lord  fed  the  five  thousand  men  in  the  desert, 
the  order  he  gave  to  the  people  immediately  be- 
fore, was,  as  expressed   by  Matthew  ^^  avaxh&rj' 
va,L  £711  Tovg  %oQTovs  ;  as    expressed   by   Mark  ^^, 
avaxhvai  stzl  to  xlcoga  x^gxa  ;   as   expressed  by 
Luke^\  xazaxXLvajs    avTovg  ;    and,   as    expressed 
by  John  ^',  noiriaaTS  avaTCsastv.     Here  every  one 
of  the  Evangelists  conveys  the  same  order  in  a 
different  phrase,  all  of  them,  however,   both  natu- 
re Matlh.  xiv.  19.  »9  Mark,  vi.  39. 
40  Luke,  ix.  14.                              ^^  John,  vi.  10. 


344  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

rally  and  simply.     This  variety  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  imitate  in  English,  without  recurring 
to  unnatural  and  affected  expressions.     The  three 
last  Evangelists  use  different  verbs  to  express  the 
posture,  namely  avaxXiva,  xuTaxhva,  and  avamn- 
T«.     And  even  in  the  first,  the  expression  is,  I 
may  say,  equally  varied,  as  one   of  the  two  who 
use  that  verb,    employs    the    passive   voice,   the 
other  the  active.     Now,  in  the  common  transla- 
tion, the  phrase   to  sit  down,  signifying  the  pos- 
ture, is  the   same  in  them  all.      I   do   not   here 
animadvert  on  the  impropriety  of  this  version.     I 
took   occasion   formerly  ^^  to  observe  that  those 
Greek  words  denote  always  to  lie,  and  not  to  sit. 
My  intention  at  present  is   only  to  show  that  the 
simplicity  of  the  sacred  writers  does  not  entirely 
exclude   variety.     Even    the   three   terms    above 
mentioned,  are  not  all  that  occur  in  the  Gospels 
for   expressing   the   posture  then  used  at   table. 
AvaxsifiaL,  and  xaTaxeii^ai,  are  also  employed.      It 
would  be  in  vain  to  attempt,  in  modern  tongues, 
which    are   comparatively   scanty,   to    equal    the 
copiousness  of  Greek  ;  but,  as  far  as  the  language 
which  we  use  will  permit,  we  ought  not  to  over- 
look even  these  little  variations. 

§  10.  The  Evangelists  have  been  thought,  by 
many,  so  much  to  coincide  in  their  narratives,  as 
to  give  scope  for  suspecting  that  some  of  those, 
who  wrote  more  lately,  copied  those  who  wrote 
before  them.    Though  it  must  be  owned  that  there 

«  Diss.  VIII.  Part  III.  §  3,  &c. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  845 

is  often  a  coincidence,  [both  in  matter  and  in  ex- 
pression, it  will  not  be  found  so  great  in  the 
original,  nor  so  frequent  as,  perhaps,  in  all  trans- 
lations ancient  and  modern.  Many  translators 
have  considered  it  as  a  matter  of  no  moment,  pro- 
vided the  sense  be  justly  rendered,  whether  the 
differences  in  the  manner  were  attended  to  or  not. 
Nay,  in  certain  cases,  w^ierein  it  would  have  been 
easy  to  attain,  in  the  version,  all  the  variety  of 
the  original,  some  interpreters  seem  studiously  to 
have  avoided  it.  Perhaps  they  did  not  judge  it 
convenient  to  make  the  appearance  of  a  difference 
between  the  sacr^ed  writers  in  words,  when  there 
was  none  in  meaning.  In  this,  however,  I  think 
they  judged  wrong.  An  agreement  in  the  sense, 
is  all  that  ought  to  be  desired  in  them  ;  more 
especially,  as  they  wrote  in  a  language  different 
from  that  spoken  by  the  ^^ersons  whose  history 
they  relate.  When  this  is  the  case,  the  most 
tenacious  memory  will  not  account  for  a  perfect 
identity  of  expression  in  the  witnesses.  Their 
testimony  is  given  in  Greek.  The  language 
spoken  by  those  whose  story  they  relate,  was  a 
dialect  of  Chaldep.  They  were  themselves,  there- 
fore (at  least  three  of  them,)  the  translators  of 
the  speeches  and  conversations  recorded  in  their 
histories.  The  utmost  that  is  expected  from  dif- 
ferent translators,  is  a  coincidence  in  sense  ;  a 
perfect  coincidence  in  words,  in  a  work  of  such 
extent  as  the  Gospel,  is,  without  previous  concert, 
impossible.  Consequently,  an  appearance  of  dif- 
ference, arising  solely  from  the  use  of  different 
expressions,   is   of   much   less   prejudice   to    the 


346  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xri. 

credibility  of  their  narration,  than  the  appearance 
of  concert  or  copying  would  have  been. 

When,  therefore,  the  language  of  the  inter- 
preter of  the  Gospels  will  admit  an  imitation  of 
such  diversities  in  the  style,  it  ought  not  to  be 
overlooked.  If  possible,  their  narratives  should  be 
neither  more,  nor  less,  coincident,  in  the  version, 
than  they  are,  in  the  original.  And  to  this  end, 
namely,  that  the  phraseology  may  nearly  differ 
as  much  in  English  as  it  does  in  Greek,  I  have,  on 
some  occasions,  chosen  not  the  very  best  word 
which  might  have  been  found,  satisfying  myself 
with  this,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  word  I  have 
employed,  unsuitable,  dark,  or  ambiguous.  But, 
as  was  signified  before,  it  is  not  possible  so  to 
diversify  the  style  of  a  version,  as  to  make  it 
always  correspond,  in  this  respect,  to  the  original. 
Nor  ought  a  correspondence  of  this  kind  ever  to 
be  attempted,  at  the  expense  of  either  perspicuity 
or  propriet}^  I  shall  only  add,  that  a  little  eleva- 
tion of  style  may  naturally  be  expected  in  quota- 
tions from  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  and  in 
the  short  canticles  which  we  have  in  the  two  first 
chapters  of  Luke  ;  for  in  these,  though  not  writ- 
ten in  verse,  the  expression  is  poetical. 

§  11.  Fourthly,  Not  only  the  differences  in 
the  styles  of  the  different  Evangelists,  ought  not 
to  pass  entirely  unnoticed  ;  but  the  same  thing  may 
be  affirmed  of  the  changes  sometimes  found  in  the 
terms  used  by  the  same  Evangelist.  Here,  again, 
I  must  observe,  that  it  were  in  vain  to  attempt  an 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  347 

exact  correspondence  in  this  respect.  There  is  a 
superior  richness  in  the  language  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ers which  even  their  style,  though  simple  and  un- 
affected (for  they  never  step  out  of  their  way  in 
quest  of  ornament,)  cannot  entirely*  conceal.  They 
use  considerable  variety  of  terms  for  expressing 
those  ordinary  exertions  for  which  our  modern 
tongues  hardly  admit  any  variety.  I  have  given 
one  specimen  of  this,  in  the  words  whereby  they 
express  the  posture  then  used  at  meals.  I  shall 
here  add  some  other  examples.  The  following 
words  occur  in  the  New  Testament,  Xsya,  sjtOy 
(pr}}.u,  cpaaxa,  (pga^a,  gec),  siga,  sgeco,  all  answering 
to  the  English  verb  say.  Of  these  we  may  affirm, 
with  truth,  that  it  is  but  rarely  that  any  of  them 
admits  a  different  rendering  in  our  language. 
The  words  xoivoa,  ixoXwa,  [iiaiva,  G7ti?,oco,  gvnoa, 
correspond  to  the  English  verb  defilej  by  which 
they  are  commonly  rendered.  So  also  do  the 
words  (igcocfxa,  ead^ia,  zgayc)^  (paya,  to  the  English 
verb  eat.  The  greater  part  of  the  words  sub- 
joined are,  in  the  common  translation,  rendered 
always,  and  the  rest  occasionally,  by  the  English 
verb  see  ;  eida,  ansidco,  onjofxai,  OTuava,  ^XsTtca, 
six^XeTta,  'ogaa,  xa&ogaa,  d'eaofxai,  d'eagsa,  'laiogta. 
Yet,  in  none  of  the  lists  aforementioned,  are  the 
words  perfectly  synonymous,  nor  can  they  be 
said  to  be  always  used  promiscuously  by  the  in- 
spired penmen.  They  are,  consequently,  of  use, 
not  only  for  diversifying  the  style,  but  for  giving 
it  also  a  degree  of  precision  which  poorer  lan- 
guages cannot  supply. 


348  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xh. 

The  same  thing  may  be  exemplified  in  the 
nouns,  though  not,  perhaps,  in  the  same  degree  as 
in  the  verbs.  ^§s,  agviov,  afxvos,  are  used  by 
the  Evangelists,  the  first  by  Luke,  the  other  two 
by  John ;  and  are  all  rendered,  in  the  common 
translation,  lamb  :  Sixtvov,  aii(pi^hi<ixgov^  aayrivri^ 
in  the  Gospels,  are  all  translated  net.  And,  though 
the  latter  might  have  been  varied  in  the  version, 
the  others  could  not  with  propriety.  Sometimes 
we  are  obliged  to  render  different  words  which 
occur  pretty  often,  but  are  not  entirely  synony- 
mous, by  the  same  English  word,  for  want  of 
distinct  terms  adapted  to  each  meaning.  Thus, 
the  words  TtaiSia  and  rsxva  are,  if  I  mistake  not, 
uniformly  rendered  children  ;  though  the  former 
word  particularly  respects  the  age  and  size,  the 
latter  solely  the  relation.  The  first  answers  to 
the  Latin  piieruli,  the  second  to  liberi.  The 
English  word  children  is  well  adapted  to  the  for- 
mer, though  sometimes  but  awkwardly  employed 
to  denote  the  latter.  Yet,  for  want  of  another 
term  to  express  the  offspring,  without  limiting 
it  to  either  sex,  we  find  it  necesi^ary  to  use  the 
English  word  in  this  application.  The  word  'o 
nlridLov,  used  by  the  Evangelists  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke,  yeizav  by  Luke  and  John,  and  ns- 
gioiy.os  only  by  Luke,  are  all  rendered  neighbour. 
And  though  they  are  evidently  not  of  the  same 
signification,  it  would  be  difficult,  in  our  language, 
to  express  the  sense  of  any  of  them  in  one  word, 
which  would  answer  so  well  as  this.  Yet,  that 
they  are  not  synonymous,  every  one  who  under- 
stands Greek  must,  on  reflection,  be  sensible. 
For  if,  instead  of  nXriaLov^  in  the  commandment, 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  349 

Ayamjau?  rov  nlT^diov  aov  'o?  osavTOv,  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself^  we  should  substitute 
either  ysixova,  or  tzsqiolxov,  we  should  totally  alter 
the  precept ;  for  these  terms  would  comprehend 
none  but  those  who  live  within  what  is  strictly 
called  the  neighbourhood.  The  translation,  in- 
deed, into  English  ought  to  be  the  same  ;  and,  to 
say  the  truth,  it  would  be  a  more  exact  version  of 
that  precept,  than  it  is  of  the  precept,  as  we 
actually  find  it  in  the  Gospel.  For,  let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  the  word  neighbour  is  one  of  those 
which,  for  want  of  more  apposite  terms,  we  are 
obliged  to  admitf  in  Scripture,  in  a  meaning  not 
perfectly  warranted  by  common  use. 

I  shall  add  but  one  other  example.  The  word 
(piXog,  used  by  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  and 
'szaLgos,  used  only  by  Matthew,  are  both  rendered 
friend  ;  yei,  in  their  genuine  signification,  there  is 
but  little  affinity  between  them.  The  former 
always  implies  affection  and  regard,  the  latter  does 
not.  The  latter,  not  the  former,  was  employed  as 
a  civil  compellation  to  strangers  and  indifferent 
persons.  It  is  that  which  is  given,  in  the  parable 
of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard  ^^  to  the  envious 
and  dissatisfied  labourer  ;  in  the  parable  of  the 
marriage  feast  ^^  to  the  guest  who  had  not  the 
wedding  garment  ;  and  it  was  given  by  our  Lord 
to  the  traitor  Judas  ^',  when  he  came  to  deliver 
him  up  to  his  enemies.  I  do  not  say  that  ^exaigs 
is  not  rightly  translatedy)i>wof  in  these  instances  ; 
for  common  use  permits  us  to  emplo}^  the  word 

4»  Matth.  XX.  13.  ^^  xxii.  12.  ^5  xxvi.  50. 

VOL.    IL  44 


55(J  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

in  this  latitude.  But  it  is  to  be  regretted,  that  we 
have  not  a  word  better  adapted  to  such  cases,  but 
are  obliged  to  prostitute  a  name  so  respectable  as 
that  of  friend.  Besides,  it  is  manifest  that,  for 
this  prostitution,  we  cannot  plead  the  example  of 
the  Evangelists.  I  make  this  remark  the  more 
willingl}^  as  I  have  heard  some  unlearned  readers 
express  their  surprize  that  our  Lord  should  have 
paid  so  much  deference  to  the  insincere  modes  of 
civility  established  by  the  corrupt  customs  of  the 
world,  as  to  denominate  a  man  friend,  whom  he 
knew  to  harbour  the  basest  and  the  most  hostile 
intentions.  But  defects  of  this  kind  are  not  pecu- 
liar to  our  language.  They  are,  on  the  contrar}^, 
to  be  found  in  every  tongue.  All  the  Latin  trans- 
lations render  the  word,  in  the  passages  above 
mentioned,  amice  :  and  all  the  versions  into  mod- 
ern tongues,  with  which  I  am  acquainted,  except 
one,  act  in  the  same  manner.  The  exception 
meant  is  the  Geneva  French,  which  says  not  mon 
ami,  as  others,  but  compagnon,  in  all  the  three 
places  mentioned.  This  is  more  literal,  for  'sraigos 
is,  strictly,  sociiis,  or  sodalis,  not  amicus.  But 
it  may  be  questioned,  whether  such  a  compella- 
tion  suits  the  idiom  of  that  tongue,  as  it  appears  to 
have  been  adopted  by  no  other  French  inter- 
preter. 

§  12.  I  SHALL  now  give,  from  the  first  of  the 
list  of  verbs  above  mentioned,  an  instance  or  two 
of  the  uniformity  commonly  observed  in  the  use 
of  this   variety,   a  uniformity   which   sufficiently 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  351 

evinces,  that  the  terms  were  not  conceived  by  the 
writers  to  be  perfectly  synonymous.  Our  Lord 
says,  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount ''^  Hxovaaxe'oxi 
EPPE&H  Tois  agxawLS'  Ov  (povevasis — Eyco  Ss 
AEFSl  *vfiiv,  'oil — 'og  av  EIJJH'  to  aBil(pa  aviov. 
Payed  : — In  the  common  translation.  Ye  have 
heard  that  it  loas  said  by  them  of  old  time,  Thou 
shalt  not  kill — But  1  say  unto  you,  that — whosoever 
shall  SAY  to  his  brother,  Raca — -In  the  Ei^glish,  the 
verb  say  occurs  thrice  in  this  short  passage  ;  in 
the  Greek,  there  are  three  different  verbs  employ- 
ed. Yet  so  little  does  there  appear,  in  the  author, 
a  disposition  to  phange,  for  the  sake  of  changing, 
^hat  wherever  the  case  is  perfectly  similar  to  that 
wherein  any  of  the  three  verbs  above  mentioned 
is  used  in  this  quotation,  the  word  will  be  found 
to  be  the  same  throughout  the  whole  discourse. 
Thus,  through  the  whole  of  this  discourse,  what 
our  Lord  authoritatively  gives  in  charge,  as  from 
himself,  is  signified  by  the  same  phrase,  syo  Isya 
'vfiiv  ;  whatever  is  mentioned  as  standing  on  the 
foot  of  oral  tradition,  is  expressed  by  sggi&rf ;  part 
of  the  verb  gsa  ;  and  what  is  mentioned  as 
neither  precept  nor  maxim  of  any  kind,  but  as 
what  may  pass  incidentally  in  conversation,  is 
denoted  by  the  verb  btko.  Another  example  of 
the  different  application  of  such  words,  we  have, 
in  our  Lord's  conversation  with  the  chief  priests 
and  elders,  in  relation  to  the  authority  by  which 
he  acted  ^^.  ^Oi  8s  SuXoyiCovjo  nag  Uavxois, 
AEEONTEZ,    Eav    EIHIIMEN,    f|    ovgavov, 

4«  Matth.  V.  21,  22.  ^^  Matth.  xxi.  25.  27. 


352  ^     PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

EPEI  'rffiiv  Jiari  ovv  ovx  eniaxiVGaxE  avxa  ; 
A  little  after,  E^H  avzois  xai  avTog.  In  the 
common  translation,  Jfid  theij  reasoned  tvith  them- 
selves, SAYING,  If  we  shall  say  froin  heaven,  he  will 
SAY  unto  us,  Whtj  did  ye  not  then  believe  him  9 
Afterwards,  And  he  said  unto  them.  Here  the 
same  repetition  in  the  version  is  contrasted  with  a 
still  greater  variety  in  the  original  ;  for  we  have 
no  fewer  than  four  different  w^ords  in  the  Greek, 
rendered  into  our  language,  by  repeating  the 
same  English  verb  four  times.  The  sense  of  ma 
is  the  same  in  both  passages;  the  word  Af/o  is 
used  here  more  indefinitely  than  in  the  former  ; 
the  verb  nqa  approaches  in  meaning  to  the  word 
retort,  and  seems  to  preclude  reply. 

On  comparing,  we  must  perceive,  that  there  is 
not  only  an  awkwardness  in  the  repetitions  which 
modern  languages  sometimes  render  necessary, 
but  even  a  feebleness  in  the  enunciation  of  .the 
sentiment.  This  consideration,  Avhen  attended  to, 
will  be  found  to  warrant  our  taking  the  greater 
liberty  in  diversifying  the  expression  wherever 
our  language  permits  it.  For  if  tve  are  often 
obliged  to  repeat  the  same,  where  the  original 
employs  different  words  ;  and  if  w^e  also  retain 
the  same  words,  where  the  original  retains  the 
same,  though  our  own  tongue  would  allow  a 
change,  the  style  of  the  version  must  be  a  bad 
representation  of  that  of  the  original.  It  will 
have  all  the  defects  of  both  languages,  ~^and  none 
of  the  riches  of  either.  I  have,  therefore,  taken 
the  liberty  to  vary  the  expression  a  little,  where 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  353 

the  genius  of  our  tongue,  in  a  consistency  with 
simplicity,  propriety,  and  perspicuity,  permitted 
it ;  as  it  was  only  thus  I  could  compensate  for 
the  restraints  I  was  obliged  to  submit  to,  in 
cases  wherein  the  sacred  penmen  had  taken  a 
freer  range. 

§  13.  Concerning  the  diversity  of  styles  in  the 
different  Evangelists,  which  I  cannot  help  consid- 
ering as  entitled  to  more  attention  than  translators 
seem  to  have  given  it,  I  shall  beg  leave  to  make  a 
few  more  observations.  Of  the  words  which  I 
have  mentioned  «as  nearly  synonymous,  or  at  least 
as  rendered,  by  most  interpreters,  in  the  same 
manner,  some,  though  common  in  some  of  the 
Gospels,  do  not  occur  in  others  ;  yet,  in  no  ver- 
,sion  that  I  know,  is  this  always  to  be  discovered. 
The  verb  gscj,  I  say,  is  used  by  Matthew  often, 
by  Mark  once,  but  never  by  either  Luke  or  John. 
The  synonyme  siga  is  used  by  all  except  John, 
and  eg£a  by  all  except  Mark.  ^vaxXiva,  I  lay 
dotvn,  occurs  in  all  the  Gospels  except  John's  ; 
TcaTuxsifiai,  I  lie  doivn,  in  all  except  Matthew's. 
Every  one  of  the  Evangelists  has  also  many 
words  to  be  found  in  none  of  the  rest  ;  and  that 
not  only  when  peculiar  things  are  mentioned  by 
him,  but  when  the  same  things,  the  same  actions, 
the  same  circumstances,  which  are  taken  notice  of 
by  other  Evangelists,  are  related.  These,  it  is, 
sometimes,  impossible  to  translate  justly  in  dif- 
ferent words.  Luke,  sometimes,  in  addressing 
God,  uses  the  word  SsanoTrfs,  which  is  not  in  any 
of  the  other  Evangelists,  and  can  hardly  be  ren- 


354  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

dered  otherwise   than   Lord^   the   term  whereby 
xvgios,    which  occurs  in  them  all,   is   commonly 
translated.     Luke  is  also  peculiar  in  giving  Jesus 
Christ  the  title  STitaTairfg,  which   cannot  well  be 
rendered  otherwise  than  master,  the  common  ren- 
dering of  SiSaaxakos,  though,  as  Grotius  observes, 
the  words  are  not  perfectly  equivalent.     Matthew 
has,  in  one  passage,  applied  to   our  Lord  a  title 
not   used   by    any   other,    xa&Tj/rfjT^s,   which    our 
translators  have   also  rendered  master,  and  have 
thereby  impaired  the  sense.     In  like  manner  the 
multiplicity   of  inflections  in  the   tenses,  moods, 
and  voices  of  their  verbs,  supplies  them  with  a 
variety   of  expressions    which    serve  to  diversify 
their  stjle  in  a  manner   not   to   be   imitated   in 
modern    tongues,   and    less   perhaps    in   English, 
which  has  very  few  inflections,  than  in  any  other. 
Add  to  the    aforesaid    advantages,  in  respect   of 
variety,  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
derived  from  their  language,  the  derivatives  and 
compounds   with   which   that   copious   tongue  so 
remarkably  abounds. 

Now,  I  do  not  know  any  stronger  indications  of 
a  native  difference  of  style  than  those  above  men- 
tioned, and  in  part  exemplified.  And,  as  this  dif- 
ference conveys  some  evidence  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  writings,  it  ought  not  to  be  always  disre- 
garded by  translators,  merely  because  it  is  not 
possible  always  to  preserve  it  in  their  versicns. 
It  is  then  in  effect  preserved,  when  they"  give  such 
a  turn  to  the  expression,  as  renders  the  difference 
of  phraseology  nearly  equal  upon  the  whole. 
This,  however,  ought  never  to  be  attempted,  when 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  355 

either  the  sense  may  be  ever  so  little  altered  by- 
it,  or  the  simplicity  and  perspicuity  of  the  sen- 
tence may  be  injured.  What  has  been  now 
observed  will  account  for  my  employing  words 
sometimes,  which,  though  not  unusual  or  obscure, 
are  not  the  most  obvious,  and  for  giving  such  a 
turn  to  the  expression,  as  renders  it  less  literal 
than  it  might  otherwise  have  been. 

§  14.  I  HAVE  avoided,  as  much  as  possible,  the 
use  of  circumlocution  :  yet  there  are  certain  cases 
where  we  cannot  avoid  it  entirely,  and  do  justice 
to  our  author.  I-  do  not  mean  barely,  when  there 
is  not  a  single  word  in  the  language  of  the  trans- 
lation which  conveys  the  sense  of  the  original 
term  ;  but  when  there  is  something,  either  in  the 
.application,  or  in  the  argument,  that  cannot  be 
fully  exhibited  without  the  aid  of  some  additional 
terms.  It  has  been  often  observed  that,  in  no  two 
languages,  do  the  words  so  perfectly  correspond, 
that  the  same  terms  in  one  will  always  express 
the  sense  of  the  same  terms  in  the  other.  There 
is  a  difference  of  extent  in  meaning  which  hinders 
them  from  suiting  exactly,  even  when  they  coin- 
cide in  the  general  import.  The  epithet  a/gsios, 
as  applied  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  ^®,  is  so  far  from 
suiting  the  sense  of  the  English  word  unprofitable, 
by  which  it  is  rendered  in  the  common  translation, 
that  if  we  were  to  give  a  definition  of  an  unprofit- 
able servant,  we  should  hardly  think  of  another 
than  the  reverse  of  the  character  given  in  that 

**  Luke,  xvii.  10. 


356  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xn. 

passage,  but  should  say,  '  he  is  one  who  does  not 
'  that  to  his  .master  which  is  his  duty  to  do.' 
From  the  context,  however,  no  person  can  be  at 
a  loss  to  see,  that  the  import  of  the  word  is,  "  We 
"  have  conferred  no  favour,  we  have  only  fulfilled 
"the  terms  which  we  were  bound  to  perform." 
I  know  that  because  the  sentiment  is  not  express- 
ed with  the  brevity  of  the  original,  many  would 
call  this  a  comment,  or  rather  a  paraphrase,  and 
not  a  version.  It  is  expressed,  I  acknowledge,  by 
a  periphrasis  ;  but  periphrasis  and  paraphrase  are 
not  synonymous  terms.  The  former  is  in  every 
translation  sometimes  necessary,  in  order  to  trans- 
mit the  genuine  thought  and  reasoning  of  the 
author ;  it  is  only  when  more  than  this  is  attempt- 
ed, and  when  other  sentiments  are  introduced  or 
suggested,  for  the  sake  of  illustrating  an  author's 
thoughts,  or  enforcing  his  arguments,  that  men 
employ  paraphrase.  It  is  not  denied,  that  peri- 
phrasis in  translating,  ought  to  be  avoided,  if  "pos- 
sible ;  but  it  is  not  always  possible  to  avoid  it, 
and  periphrasis  is  preferable  to  single  words, 
which  either  convey  no  meaning,  or  convey  a 
meaning  different  from  the  authors. 

The  word  (SaTtiLafia,  in  the  question  put  by  our 
Lord,  To  ^aTtiKji-ia  laavvov  nodsv  y^v  ^^ ;  does 
not  answer  to  the  word  baptism,  as  used  by  us  ; 
nor  does  avaaiaais,  in  the  account  given  of  the 
Sadducees  ^'^,  correspond  entirely  to  the  English 
word  resurrectio7i :  the  word  £7ia}^/sha~'is,  for  the 

^»  Matth.  xxi.  25.  50  Matth.  xxii.  23. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  357 

most  p^rt,  rendered  promise^  and  means  neither 
more  nor  less.  In  a  few  cases,  however,  it  does 
not  signify  the  promise  itself,  but  the  thing  prom- 
ised. Now  the  English  word  is  never  so  applied. 
Hence  the  obscurity,  not  to  say  impropriety,  of 
that  expression,  /  send  the  promise  of  my  Father 
upon  you  ^S  which,  if  it  can  be  said  to  suggest  any 
thing  to  an  English  reader,  suggests  awkwardly, 
/  give  you  a  promise  on  the  part  of  my  Father. 
Yet  this  is  not  the  sense.  What  is  here  meant  is 
the  fulfilment  of  a  promise  formerly  given  them  by 
his  Father,  and  is  therefore  properly  rendered,  / 
smd  you  that  ivhich  my  Father  hath  promised. 
Though  not  attending  to  this  difference,  our  transla- 
tors have  thrown  great  darkness  on  some  passages 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  These  all  (says 
the  writer,  speaking  of  Abraham,  Sarah,  and 
others)  died  in  the  faith^  not  having  received  the 
promises,  (ir^  Xajiovrss  ras  titayyEXias  ^^.  Yet  this 
way  interpreted,  the  assertion  is  contradictory,  not 
only  to  the  patriarchal  history,  but  to  what  is  said 
expressly  of  Abraham  in  the  same  chapter  ^^ 
The  words,  therefore,  ought  to  have  been  render- 
ed, not  having  received  the  promised  inheritance ; 
for  it  is  the  land  of  Canaan  promised  to  Abraham 
and  his  posterity,  to  which  the  writer  particularly 
refers,  giving  as  an  evidence  that  they  had  not  re- 
ceived it,  their  acknowledging  themselves  to  be 
strangers  and  sojourners  in  the  land ;  not  on  the 

5^  Luke,  xxiv.  49.     See  all   these  passages  in   this   Transla- 
tion, and  the  notes  upon  them.        *^  Heb.  xi.  13.        ^^  viii.  &,c. 
VOL.  II.  45 


358  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii, 

earth,  as  it  is,  particularly  in  this  place,  very  im- 
properly translated. 

§  15.  Again,  suppose,  which  is  not  uncommon, 
that  the  original  word  has  two  different,  but  re- 
,  lated  senses,  and  that  the  author  had  an  allusion 
to  both.  Suppose  also  that  in  the  language  of 
the  interpreter  there  is  a  term  adapted  to  each  of 
those  senses,  but  not  any  one  word  that  will  suit 
both.  In  such  cases  perspicuity  requires  some- 
what of  periphrasis.  If  we  abruptly  change  the 
word  in  the  same  sentence,  or  in  the  same  argu- 
ment, there  will  appear  an  incoherence  in  the 
version,  where  there  appears  a  close  connection 
in  the  original;  and  if  we  retain  the  same  term, 
there  will  be  both  obscurity  and  impropriety  in 
the  version.  I  shall  explain  my  meaning  by  ex- 
amples, the  only  way  of  making  such  criticisms 
understood. 

In  one  place  in  Matthew  ^^,  the  verb  zifiaa  is 
employed,  as  usual,  to  express  the  duty  which 
children  owe  to  their  parents.  To  honour  is  that 
commonly  used  in  English.  Yet  this  word  is  not 
equivalent  in  import  to  the  Greek  verb,  much  less 
to  the  Hebrew  *liD  c^«6«c?,  translated- Tt^ao  by 
the  Seventy  in  the  place  quoted  by  the  Evangel- 
ist. This  is  one  of  the  causes  of  the  obscurity 
and  apparent  inconsequence  of  that  passage  in  the 
Gospel.  I  have,  therefore,  rendered  the  word, 
where  it  occurs  the  second  time  in  the-arsument 


'&' 


54  Matth.  XV.  4,  5. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS,  359 

used  by  our  Lord,  honour  by  his  assistance ;   for 
the  original  implies  no  less. 

The  Apostle  Paul,  writing  to  the  Romans  (for 
it  is  not  necessary  here  to  confine  myself  to  the 
Gospels,)  says  ",  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  common 
version,  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the  Gospel  ; 
for  Esaias  saith,  Lord,  tvho  hath  believed  our  re- 
port ?  So  then,  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hear- 
ing by  the  ivord  of  God.  What  the  Apostle  intro- 
duces here  with  >S'o  then,  as  a  direct  conclusion 
from  the  words  of  the  Prophet,  cannot  fail  to  ap- 
pear remote  to  an  English  reader,  and  to  require 
some  intermediate  ideas  to  make  out  the  connec- 
tion. The  incoherency  disappears  entirely,  w  hen 
we  recur  to  the  original,  where  the  words  are  : 
uiXX  ov  TtavTi^s  "vTtTjxovciav  T6)  svayyshca.  ffaaias 
yag  Xsyst,  Kvqel,  tls  STtidTsvcts  tt^  axor^  'i^iicov ;  y^ga 
"^71  TtLdjig  £|  axoT^s,  "^ri  8s  axorf  8ia  gi^fiajo?  Oeov. 
Nothing  can  be  more  clearly  consequential,  than 
the  argument  as  expressed  here.  Isaiah  had  said, 
complaining  of  the  people,  Tis  eTticiTSvciE  rrf  axotf 
'rffi,av ;  from  which  the  Apostle  infers,  that  it  com- 
monly holds  ni2:TI2:  f|  AKOHZ,  otherwise 
there  had  been  no  scope  for  complaint.  But,  by 
the  change  of  the  term  in  English,  from  report  to 
hearing,  however  nearly  the  ideas  are  related,  the 
expression  is  remarkably  obscured.  It  must  be 
owned,  that  we  have  no  word,  in  English,  of  equal 
extent,  in  signification,  w^th  the  Greek  aycori, 
which    denotes   both    the   report,   or    the   thing 

55  Rom.  X.  IG,  17. 


360  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xn. 

heard,  and  the  sensation  of  hearing ;  though,  in 
regard  to  the  sense  of  seeing,  the  English  word 
sight  is  of  equal  latitude  ;  for  it  denotes  both  the 
thing  seen,  and  the  perception  received  by  the 
eye  ^^  But,  when  such  a  difference  as  this  hap- 
pens, between  the  import  of  their  words  and  ours, 
one  does  more  justice  to  the  original,  and  interprets 
more  strictly,  by  giving  the  sentence  such  a  turn 
as  will  preserve  the  verbal  allusion,  than  by  such 
a  change  of  the  terms  as  our  translators  have 
adopted,  to  the  no  small  injury  of  perspicuity. 
The  passage  may,  therefore,  properly  be  rendered 
thus  :  For  Isaiah  saith,  "  Lord,  who  believeth  what 
"  he  heareth  us  preach  .^"  So  then,  belief  cometh 
by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God 
preached.  Nor  is  the  addition  of  the  participle 
preached,  to  be  considered  as  a  supply,  from  con- 
jecture, of  what  is  not  expressed  in  the  original ; 
for,  in  fact,  the  word  axorf  here  implies  it.  Dio- 
dati  has  not  badly  translated  it  preaching.  Sig- 
nore,  chi  a  creduto  alia  nostra  predicatione  ?  La 
fede  adunque  e  dalla  predicatione.  This  is  better 
than  the  English  version,  as  it  preserves  clearly 
the  connection  of  the  two  verses.  It  is,  neverthe- 
less, of  importance,  not  to  suppress  the  other  sig- 
nification of  aytori,  to  wit,  hearing,  as,  by  means  of 
it,  the  connection  is  rendered  clearer,  both  with 
the  preceding  words,  How  shall  they  believe  in 
him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  "  ?  and  with  the 

^'  See  an   excellent  illustration  of  this  in  Dr.  Beattie's  Essay 
on  Truth,  Part  II.  Ch.  II.  Sect.  I.  ^ 

«  57  Rom.  X.  14. 


1..  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  361 

following,  But,  I  say,  Have  they  not  heard  ^^P  I  shall 
only  add,  that  where  the  coincidence  in  the  sense 
is  very  clear,  the  grammatical  relation  between  the 
words  is  of  less  importance.  There  is,  in  this  pas- 
sage, a  verbal  connection,  not  only  between  the 
words  axovo  and  axotf,  but  also  between  TtLazsva 
and  Ttiaxis.  But  the  English  word  faith,  being 
fully  equivalent  to  the  Greek  word  TticiTis,  and  its 
connection  with  believing  being  evident,  it  is  not 
of  great  moment  to  preserve  in  English  the  affini- 
ty in  sound.  As  such  resemblances,  however, 
ahvays  in  some  degree  assist  attention,  and  are  a 
sort  of  evidence^  it  is  rather  better  to  retain  them, 
w^here,  without  hurting  the  sense,  it  can  be  done. 
For  this  reason,  I  prefer  the  word  belief,  here,  to 
the  word  faith. 

I  shall  give  but  one  other  example,  which, 
though  not  requiring  the  aid  of  circumlocution,  is 
of  a  nature  somewhat  similar  to  the  former.  A 
verb,  or  an  epithet,  in  the  original,  is  sometimes 
construed  with  a  noun,  used  figuratively,  and  is 
also  construed,  because  use  permits  the  applica- 
tion, with  that  which  is  represented  by  the  figure  ; 
whereas,  in  the  translator's  language,  the  term 
by  which  the  verb  or  epithet  is  commonly  ren- 
dered, is  not  equally  susceptible  of  both  applica- 
tions. In  such  cases,  it  is  better,  when  the  thing 
is  practicable,  to  change  the  word  for  one  which, 
though  less  common,  suits  both.  The  following 
passage  will  illustrate  my  meaning  ^^  ITsgLs^sL  ev 
TTi  j^gacptf'     "  l8ov  jidTifiL  ev  Zmv  Xidov  axgoyavia- 

58  Ver.  18.  5M  Pet.  ii.  6,  7. 


362  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

"  lov,  £xX6XT0v,  avTifiov  ycaL  'o  Ttidrsvav  sjt  avro,  ov 
"  fjirf  xaTaia/wdTj.''''  ^  Tfiiv  ovv  "^ij  Tifxij  tois  Ttiarevov- 
6LV'  aTtSL&ovdL  ds,  XlOov  'ov  ajtcdoxifiacav  '^oi  01x080- 
fiovvTss,  sTOS  Eyswi^d-q  sis  xi:(pa?,7^v  ycovias :  which 
our  translators  render  thus  :  It  is  contained  in  the 
Scripture,  "  Behold,  I  lay  in  Sion  a  chief  corner- 
"  stone,  elect,  precious,  and  he  that  believeth  on 
"  him  shall  not  be  confoimded.^^  Unto  you,  therefore, 
which  believe,  he  is  precious  :  but  unto  them  tvhich 
be  disobedient,  the  stone  which  the  builders  disal- 
loioed,  the  same  is  made  the  head  of  the  corner. 
Here  the  type  and  the  antitype  are  so  blended,  as 
to  hurt,  alike,  both  perspicuity  and  propriety.  To 
speak  of  believing  in  a  stone,  an  elect  stone,  and  to 
apply  the  pronoun  him  to  a  stone,  sound  very 
oddly  in  our  language ;  but  TiidTsva  btil,  in  the 
Hellenistic  idiom,  and  sxIsxtos,  admit  an  applica- 
tion either  to  persons  or  to  things.  The  apostle 
said  8K  avTco,  because  Xid-os  is  of  the  masculine 
gender :  for  the  like  reason,  he  would  have  said 
S7t  avTTi,  had  he  used  Ttsrga  instead  of  ki&os. 
Would  our  translators,  in  that  case,  have  rendered 
it.  He  who  believeth  on  her  ?  Now,  the  English 
verb,  to  trust,  and  the  participle  selected,  are  sus- 
ceptible of  both  applications.  Let  the  passage, 
then,  be  rendered  thus  :  It  is  said  in  Scripture, 
"  Behold,  I  lay  in  Sioti  a  chief  corner-stone,  select- 
"  ed  and  precious :  whosoever  trusteth  to  it  shall 
"  7iot  be  ashamed.''"'  There  is  honour,  therefore,  to 
you  ivho  trust ;  but  to  the  inistrustful,  the  stone 
which  the  builders  rejected,  is  made  the  head  of  the 
corner.      I  may  remark,  in   passing,  that  '7^  ti(aij 


r.  ,.]  DISSERTATIONS.  363 

is  here  evidently  opposed  to  '?^  attfj^vv?/,  the  import 
of  which  is  included  in  the  verb  xaraLaxwdri  ;  in- 
stead of  shame  ye  shall  have  honour;  but  by  no 
rule,  that  I  know,  can  it  be  translated,  he  is  pre- 
cious. ^Ttstd'ovdi,  though  often  justly  rendered 
disobedient,  rather  signifies,  here,  mistrustful,  in- 
credulous, being  contrasted  to  mciTsvovai.  All  the 
above  examples  are  calculated  to  show,  that  it  is 
as  impossible  for  a  translator,  if  he  preserve  that 
uniformity  in  translating  so  much  insisted  on  by 
some,  to  convey  perspicuously,  or  even  intelligi- 
bly, the  meaning  of  the  author,  and  to  give  a  just 
representation  of  his  manner,  as  it  is  to  retain  any 
regard  to  purity  in  the  language  which  he  writes  : 
and  that,  therefore,  this  absurd  xaxo^T/Ata  subverts, 
alike,  all  the  principal  ends  which  he  ought  to 
have  in  view. 

§  16.  It  was  admitted,  that  it  is  necessary  to 
employ  more  words  than  one  in  the  version,  when 
the  original  term  requires  more  for  conveying  the 
sense  into  the  language  of  the  translator.  Nobody 
doubts  the  propriety  of  rendering  ngoaaitoXriTtTris, 
respecter  of  persons,  (pilagyvgia,  love  of  money,  or 
anoavvayayos,  expelled  the  synagogue;  and  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  give  the  meaning  in  another 
language,  without  the  aid  of  some  such  periphra- 
sis. Yet  even  this  rule,  however  general  it  may 
appear,  does  not  hold  invariably.  There  are  cases 
wherein  it  is  better  to  leave  part  of  the  meaning 
unexpressed,  than,  by  employing  circumlocution, 
not  only  to  desert  simplicity,  but  to  suggest  some- 
thing  foreign   to    the   intention    of    the    author. 


364  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

That  this  will  sometimes  be  the  consequence  of 
an  over-scrupulous  solicitude  to  comprehend  eve- 
ry thing  that  may  be  implied  in  the  original  term, 
will  be  evident  on  reflection.     Zaccheus,  the  pub- 
lican, said  to  our  Lord  ^°,  El  tlvos  tl  savxocpavTrfda, 
a7to8L§afii  TSTganlovv^  which  our  translators  have 
rendered.   If  I  have  taken  any  thing  from  any 
man  by  false  accusation,  I  restore  hint  fourfold. 
In  this  they  have  followed  Beza,  and  Leo  de  Juda, 
who  say  Si    quid  cuipiam  per  calumniam  eripui, 
reddo  quadruplum.     Admitting  the  justness  of  the 
note  subjoined  by  the  latter,  in  regard  to  the  arti- 
fices of  the  publicans,  I  approve  much  more  the 
version  of  the  word  in  the  Vulgate  and  Erasmus, 
Si  quid  aliquem  defraudavi,  or  in  Castalio,  to  the 
same  purpose.  Si  quern  ulla  re  fraudavi,  "  If  in 
"  aught  I  have  wronged  any  man ;"  than  those 
anxious  attempts,  by  tracing  little  circumstances^ 
to  reach  the  full  import  of  the  original.     My"ol> 
jection  to  such  attempts,  is  not  so  much  because 
they  render  the  expression  unnecessarily  complex, 
but  because  something  foreign  to  the  intention  of 
the  author,  rarely  fails  to  be  suggested  by  them. 
However  paradoxical  it  may  at  first  iappear,  it  is 
certainly  true,  that  to  express  a  thing  in  one  word, 
and  to  express  it  in  several,  makes  sometimes  a  dif- 
ference, not  only  in  the  style,  but  in  the  meaning. 
I  need  not  go  further,  for  an  example,  than  the 
words  on  which  I  am   remarking.      For  a  man, 
in    the  station   of    Zaccheus,  who    was  probably 
not  liable  to  the  charge  of  being  injurious  in  any 
other   way   than  that  to  which  his  business   ex- 

^^  Luke,  xix.  8. 


l!:^# 


p.  r.]  DISSERTATIONS.  ^65 

posed  him,  nothing  could  be  more  natural,  oi* 
more  apposite,  than  the  expression  which  the 
Evangelist  represents  him  as  having  used,  el  tivos 
Ti  8avxo(pavTr^aa.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  not 
have  been  natural  in  him  to  say,  scti  sxXsyja,  or  £t  tl 
iavXTfaa,  because  his  manner  of  life,  and  his  cir- 
cumstances, set  him  above  the  suspicion  of  the 
crimes  of  theft  and  robbery.  Such  things,  there- 
fore, are  not  supposed  to  enter  the  person's  mind. 
But  when  we  substitute  a  circumlocution,  that  is, 
a  definition,  for  the  name  of  a  crime,  other  kindred 
crimes  are  necessarily  conceived  to  be  in  view ; 
because  it  is  always  by  the  aid  of  the  genus,  and  the 
difference,  somehow  signified,  that  the  species  is 
defined.  Now,  in  a  case  hke  the  present,  wherein 
the  purpose  of  restitution  is  explicitly  declared, 
to  introduce  mention  of  the  genus,  with  the  limita- 
tion  denoted  by  the  specific  difference,  is  an  im- 
plicit declaration,  that  the  promise  of  reparation 
shall  not  be  understood  to  extend  to  any  other 
species  of  injuries.  Had  our  language  been  that 
spoken  in  Judea,  and  had  this  humble  publican, 
when  he  made  his  penitent  declaration  to  his 
Lord,  said  in  English,  /  will  restore  four-fold,  if 
in  might  I  have  wronged  any  man  ;  can  we  imag- 
ine, that  he  would  have  clogged  his  pious  purpose, 
with  the  reserve  which  the  additional  words,  by 
false  accusation,  manifestly  imply  .'*  Who  sees  not 
that,  in  this  manner  introduced,  they  are  such  a 
restriction  of  the  promise,  as  is  equivalent  to  the 
retracting  of  it  in  part,  and  saying,  '  Let  it  be  ob- 
'  served,  thatas  to  any  other  sort  of  wrong  I  may 
VOL.  n.  46 


366  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

'  have  committed,  I  promise  nothing  ?'  But  when 
the  thing  is  expressed  in  one  word,  as  in  the 
Greek,  no  such  effect  is  produced.  Much,  there- 
fore, of  the  meaning,  depends  on  the  form  of 
the  expression,  as  well  as  on  the  import  of  [the 
words. 

§  1 7.  But  this  is  not  the  only  bad  consequence 
which  results  from  the  excessive  solicitude  of  in- 
terpreters, to  comprehend  in  their  translation,  by 
the  aid  of  periphrasis,  every  thing  supposed  to  be 
included  in  the  original  term.  A  single  word  is 
sometimes  used,  with  energy  and  perspicuity,  as  a 
trope.  But  if  we  substitute  a  definition  for  the 
single  word,  we  destroy  the  trope,  and  often  ren- 
der the  sentence  nonsensical.  To  say.  The  meek 
shall  inherit  the  earth  ",  is  to  employ  the  word 
inherit  in  a  figurative  sense,  which  can  hardly  be 
misunderstood  by  any  body,  as  denoting  the  facili- 
ty with  which  they  shall  obtain  possession,  and 
the  stability  of  the  possession  obtained.  But,  if  we 
employ  circumlocution,  and  say,  in  the  manner  of 
some  interpreters,  The  meek  shall  succeed  to  the 
earth  by  hereditably  right ;  by  so  explicit,  and  so 
formal,  a  limitation  of  the  manner,  we  exclude  the 
trope,  and  affirm  what  is  palpably  inapplicable,  and 
therefore  ridiculous ;  for,  to  obtain  by  hereditary 
rights  is  to  succeed,  in  right  of  consanguinity,  to  the 
former  possessor,  now  deceased.  In  such  cases, 
if  the  translator's  language  cannot  convey  the 
trope,  in  one  word,  with  sufficient  clearness,   a 

«i  Matth.  V.  5.  . 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  367 

plain  and  proper  term  is  much  preferable  to  such 
attempts  at  expressing,  in  several  words,  a  figure, 
whose  whole  effect  results  from  its  simplicity  and 
conciseness. 

§  18.  It  is  proper  also  to  observe,  that  the 
idiom  of  one  language  will  admit,  in  a  consistency 
with  elegance  and  energy,  redundancies  in  ex- 
pression, which  have  a  very  different  effect,  trans- 
lated into  another  language.  A  few  examples  of 
this  occur  in  the  New  Testament.  YtiotioSlov 
Tov  TtoSav  avTov  ^^,  is  adequately  rendered,  in  the 
common  translation,  his  footstool,  but  is  literally 
footstool  of  his  feet.  It  is  the  versiorL^iven  by  l  ' 
the  Seventy  of  the  Hebrew  phrase  D"in\V^jn,  1  i^jj^j 
in  which  there  is  no  pleonasm.  Our  translators 
have  imitated  them  in  rendering  itoi^riv  zcov  ngo- 
^arav  shepherd  of  the  sheep  ^^  for  here  the  re- 
dundancy is  only  in  the  version.  The  words  avr^g 
and  avdganos,  are  often  by  Greek  authors,  es- 
pecially the  Attic,  construed  with  other  substan- 
tives which,  by  a  peculiar  idiom,  are  used  adjec- 
tively  ".  Matthew  joins  avOganos  with  sfXTZogos  ^^ 
with  oLxoB 80710X71?  ^^  with  ^aailevg  "  ;  and  John 
prefixes  it  to  a^agzaXos  ^^.     Luke,  in  similar  cases, 


62  Malth.  V.  35.  ^^  John,  x.  2. 

6<  This  idiom  is  not  pecuHarly  Greek.  In  Genesis,  xiii.  8. 
We  are  brethren,  is,  in  Hebrew, 'ijnjN.a^riN  D''C'J,si,  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  av^gwTCOi  aaeXg^oi  rjuetg  a6[xev,  We  are  men  brethren.  Other 
examples  might  oe  produced. 

^^  Matth.  xiii.  45.  66  Matth.  xiii.  52. 

67  Matth.  xviii.  23.  ^  John.  ix.  16. 


r 


368  PRELIMINARY  [d,  xii. 

employs  avrig^  joining  it  to  afiagroXos^^,   ^^gotpri- 
TJ^tf'°,  (povevs^^.     In  some  instances  our  translators 
have  very  properly  dropt  the  redundant  term ;  in 
others,  for   I  know   not   what  reason,  they   have 
retained  it.     Thus  dropping  it,  they  say  a  prophet, 
a  murderer,  and  a  certain  king.     On  another  oc- 
casion, in  order  to  include  both  words,  they  say 
a  merchant-man.     But  use,  whose  decisions  are 
very  arbitrary,  has  long  appropriated  this  name 
to  a  trading  ship.     They  say  also  a  man  that  is  a 
householder,  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  '^^  and,  in  one 
place,  not  badly,  a  sinful  man  '^^.     In  these,  how- 
ever, we  must  acknowledge,  there  is  no  deviation 
from  the   meaning.      Such   superfluous  words  as 
some    of   those    now    mentioned,    enfeeble    the 
expression,  but  without  altering  or  darkening  the 
sense. 

But  there  is  one  case  wherein  this  use  of  the 
noun,  avr^g,  has,  in  the  common  version,  occasioned 
a  small  deviation  from  the  meaning.  The  words 
avSgss  adiXcpoi  frequently  occur  in  the  Acts,  and 
are  always  rendered  by  our  translators,  Men  and 
brethren,  as  if  the  phrase  were  avBgsg,  xai  a8sX(pot^ 
thereby  making  them  two  distinct  appellations. 
This  I  once  thought  peculiar  to  English  translat- 
ors, but  have  since  found  that  the  same  method 
is  in  one  place  adopted  by  Luther,  in  his  German 


^9  Luke,  V.  8.  xix.  7.       ^o  Luke,  xxiv.  I5. 
'i  Acts,  iii.  13.  '^^  Luke,  xix.  7.  John,  ix.  16. 

73  Luke,  V.  8. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  369 

translation,    who    says,    3tVt    tmUtitV    tttltl 
t>rttt^Ct^^      Some  foreign  versions  have   scrupu- 
lously preserved  the  pleonastic  form;    one   says 
hommes  freres,  another  hicomini  fratelli ;    which 
are  equally  awkward   in   French   and   Italian,  as 
me7i  brethren  would  be  in  English  ;  but  into  none 
of  the  versions  in  these  languages  which  I  have 
seen,  is  the  conjunction  inserted.     Our  interpre- 
ters must  have  proceeded  on  the  supposition,  that 
the  Apostles,  by  such  compellations,  divided  their 
hearers  into  two  classes,  one  of  whom  they  bare- 
ly denominated  men,  the  other  they  more  affec- 
tionately saluted  brethren.     But  that  there  is  no 
foundation   for'  this   conceit  is  manifest ;  first,  in 
that  case,  by  the  syntactic   order,  the  copulative 
xai  must  have  been  inserted  between  the  titles. 
Yet,  though  avSgss  aSeXcpoi  occurs  in  the  Acts  no 
fewer  than  thirteen  times,  no  example   of  avSgss 
Tcai  aSslfOL  is  to  be  found.     Secondly,  it  is,  as 
was  signified  above,  entirely  in  the  Greek  idiom. 
Avdgs?  (STgaTKOTaL  soldiers,  avdges  BiTcaaxaL  judges, 
in  like  manner  as  avSgsg  Ad-qvaLoi  Athenians,  are 
warranted  by  the  examples  of  Demosthenes,  and 
the  best  writers  in  Greece.     Thirdly,  there  is  the 
same  reason  to  introduce  the  copulative  in  the 
other  examples  above  quoted,  and  to  render  av- 
dgcoTtos  B^nogos  a  man  and  a  merchant,  avtfg  afxag- 
TcoXog,  a  man  and  a  sinner,  and  so  of  the  rest,  as 
c  av8g£(\   aUl(poL  men   and   brethren.      It   may  be 
thought  that  in  the   address  AvSgs?  aBeXcfoi  xat 
TtuTsges,  as  no  conjunction  is  needed  in  the  version 

7<  Acts,  i.  16. 


370  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

but  what  is  expressed  in  the  original,  the  word 
men  ought  to  be  preserved.  But  the  use  above 
examined  sufficiently  shows  that,  in  all  such  cases, 
the  word  avSgss  is  to  be  considered  not  as  a  sepa- 
rate title,  but  as  an  idiomatic  supplement  to  aBsX- 
(poL  Tcai  Tzaregs?,  the  only  titles  given,  and  that  there- 
fore in  translations  into  modern  tongues,  it  ought  to 
be  dropt  as  an  expletive  which  does  not  suit  their 
idiom.  The  above  criticism  will  also  serve  as  one 
of  the  many  evidences,  that  what  is  vulgarly  call- 
ed the  most  literal  translation,  is  not  always  the 
most  close. 

§  19.  It  may  be  proper  also  to   observe,  that 
the  import  of  diminutives   is   not   always  to  be 
determined   by   the   general  rules  laid   down  by 
grammarians.     Bl^Xlov  is  only  in  form  a  diminu- 
tive   of   /3t/3A,tog,  oLXLca  of  otxog,  SaifiovLov    of   8ai- 
ficov ;  the  same  may  be  said  of  egL(pLov  as  used  in 
the  Gospel.     It  cannot  be  understood  as  express* 
ing  littleness  ;  for  what  is   called  €gL(pta   in   the 
only  place  where  the  word  occurs  ^^,  is  sgicpoL  in 
the  verse  immediately  preceding.     The  like  may 
be  said  of  ovagiov  and  ovog.     And  the  application 
in  that  passage  shows  sufficiently,  that  it  is  not  an 
expression  of  affection  or  tenderness.     Uivay.iSiov 
in  Luke^^,  denotes  a  thing  differing  rather  in  kind 
and  use,  than  in  dimensions  from  Jtiva^,  as  used 
by  the  same  Evangelist  ^^.     Some  diminutives  are 
intended  to  mark  a  distinction   only  in  age  or  in 

75  Matth.  XXV.  33.  76  L^kg,  i.  63. 

77  Luke,  xi.  39. 


N 


p.  1.]  DISSERTATIONS.  371 

size,  as  dnjyaTQLOv,  ^i^XagiSiov,  oxpagiov,  ix&v8lov, 
TcXividiov,  TtXoiagiov,  naiSiov,  naiSoigiov  j  and  may 
be  rendered  into  English  by  the  aid  of  the  epithet 
little^  as  little  daughter,  little  book,  little  Jish,  or  by 
a  single  word  adapted  to  the  meaning  in  the  pas- 
sage where  it  occurs,  as  couch,  boat,  child,  boy, 
infant.  Tsxviov  appears,  on  the  contrary,  more 
expressive  of  affection,  than  of  size ;  Tsxvia  is 
therefore  better  rendered  dear  children,  than  little 
children,  which,  when  addressed  to  grown  persons, 
sounds  very  oddly.  Sometimes  the  diminutive 
expresses  contempt.  In  this  way  the  word 
yvvaiycagLa  is  ys^d  by  PauF®,  and  is  not  badly 
translated  silly  women.  But,  in  many  cases,  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  the  difference  which 
a  diminutive  makes,  though  real,  is  of  too  delicate 
a  nature  to  be  transfused  into  a  version.  For 
when  a  translator,  because  the  language  which  he 
writes,  does  not  afford  a  term  exactlv  eauiva- 
lent,  makes  a  stretch  for  a  word  ;  that  word  often 
farther  exceeds  the  import  of  the  original,  than 
the  common  term  would  have  fallen  below  it. 
For  example,  in  the  check  which  our  Lord  at  first 
gave  to  the  application  of  the  Syrophenician 
woman,  I  consider  the  diminutive  ocvvagia  as  more 
emphatical  in  that  place  than  xvves  -,  yet  I  think 
it  is  incomparably  better  rendered  in  the  common 
version  dogs,  than  in  that  of  the  anonymous  trans- 
lator puppies. 

Nay,  in   the  few  cases  (for  they  are  but  few, 
in    which   our  language    has    provided    us    with 

■^s  2  Tim.  iii.  6. 


372  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

diminutives,  it  is  not  always  proper  to  render  the 
Greek  diminutive  by  the  English.  ^Igviov^  for 
example,  is  in  Greek  the  diminutive  of  ags,  so 
is  lambkin  of  lamb  in  English,  which  is  the  only 
proper  version  of  ags.  To  translate  agviov  lamb- 
kin, must  therefore  be  entirely  agreeable  to  the 
laws  of  literal  interpretation.  Yet,  who  that  un- 
derstands English,  would  hesitate  to  affirm  that  a 
translator  who  should  so  render  the  word,  wherev- 
er it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  would  be- 
tray a  great  defect  both  of  taste  and  of  judgment  ? 
This  is  one  of  the  many  evidences  we  have  that, 
without  knowing  somewhat  of  the  sentiments  and 
manners  of  a  people,  with  which  the  genius  of 
their  language  is  intimately  connected,  we  may, 
in  translating  their  works,  exhibit  an  uncouth  rep- 
resentation of  the  dead  letter,  but  are  not  qualifi- 
ed for  transfusing  into  the  version,  the  sense  and 
spirit  of  their  writings.  The  Greek  abounds  in 
diminutives  of  every  kind,  though  used  but  spar- 
ingly in  the  Gospels  ;  nay,  even  in  the  diminutives 
of  diminutives.  They  are  admitted  into  all  kinds 
of  composition,  both  prosaic  and  poetical,  the 
most  solemn  as  well  as  the  most  ludicrous.  It  is 
quite  otherwise  with  us.  We  have  but  few  of 
that  denomination,  and  those  few  are  hardly  ever 

mi  ^ 

admitted  into  grave  discussions.  They  are  m  a 
manner  confined  to  pastoral  poetry  and  romance, 
or  at  best  to  performances  whose  end  is  amuse- 
ment rather  than  instruction.  It  is  only^in  these 
that  such  words  as  lordling,  baby,  manikin,  could 
be  tolerated.  Jgviov,  in  Greek,  is  a  word  of  suf- 
ficient dignity,  which  lambkin  in  English  is.  not. 


p.  ,.]  DISSERTATIONS.  S73 

This  term  shows  rather  a  playful  than  a  serious 
disposition  in  the  person  who  uses  it.  I  have 
been  the  more  particular  here  in  order  to  show 
that,  if  we  would  translate  with  propriety,  more 
knowledge  is  requisite  than  can  be  furnished  by 
lexicons  and  grammars.  So  much  for  what,  in 
translating,  concerns  the  justness  of  expression 
necessary  for  promoting  the  author's  intention, 
and  conveying  his  sentiments. 

§  20.  Next  to  the  justness,  the  perspicuity  of 
what  is  said  will  be  universally  admitted  to  be,  of 
all  the  quahties  of  style,  the  most  essential.  Some 
indeed  seem  to  think  that  this  is  peculiarly  the 
author's  province,  and  no  farther  the  translator's, 
than  he  has  the  warrant  of  his  original.  Such 
was  the  opinion  of  Le  Clerc,  a  man  of  consider- 
able name  in  literature.  "  Quamvis  Latina  lin- 
"  gua,"  says  he^^  "  perspicuitate  multo  magis 
"  quam  Hebraica  gaudeat,  imo  vero  obscurilatem, 
"  quantum  potest,  vitare  soleat  :  ubi  Hebraica  ob- 
"  scura  sunt,  translationem  nostram  obscuriorem 
"  esse  non  diffitemur.  Sed  ut  ea  demum  effigies 
"  laudatur,  non  quae  vultum  formosum  spectan- 
«  dum,  sed  qualis  est  revera,  spectantium  oculis 
"  offert ;  sic  translatio,  ubi  archetypus  sermo  cla- 
"  rus  est,  clara ;  ubi  obscurus  obscura  esse  debet." 
This  judgment  he  quahfies  with  the  following 
words  :  "  Obscura  autem  hie  vocamus,  non  quae 
"  Hebraic^  linguae  nesciis  obscura  sunt,  sic  enim 
"  pleraeque  loquutiones  scripturae  obscurae  essent, 

79  Proleg.  in  Pent.  Diss.  II.  §  4. 
VOL.  n.  47 


374  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xir. 

"  sed  quse  a  lioguae  non  imperitis  hodie  non  satis 
"  intelliguntiir.  Contra  vero  clara  esse  dicimus, 
"  non  ea  tantum  quae  omnibus,  etiam  imperitis 
"  aperta  sunt,  sed  quse  linguae  peritioribus  nullum 
"  negotium  facessunt."  But  even  with  this  quali- 
fication the  sentiment  does  not  appear  defensible. 
It  makes  the  standard  of  perspicuity  what  it  is  im- 
possible for  any  person  exactly  to  know,  namely, 
the  degree  of  knowledge  in  the  original  attained 
(not  by  the  translator,  but)  by  the  learned  in  gen- 
eral in  the  Oriental  languages  at  the  time.  "  Ob- 
"  scura  vocamus  quse  a  linguse  non  imperitis  hodie^ 
"  non  satis  intelliguntur."  In  consequence  of 
which  the  Scriptures  ouglit  to  be  translated  more 
perspicuously  at  one  time  than  at  another,  be- 
cause the  original  is  better  understood  at  one  time 
than  at  another.  That  in  fact  they  will  be  so, 
when  in  the  hands  of  a  translator  of  superior 
capacity  and  knowledge,  cannot  be  questioned. 
But,  by  this  critic's  rule,  if  I  understand  him  right, 
the  interpreter  ought  not  to  avail  himself  of 
greater  abilities,  if  he  have  greater  abilities  ;  but, 
however  clear  the  sentiments  are  to  him,  he 
ought  to  render  them  obscurely,  if  the  original 
appear  obscure  to  the  critics  of  the  age.  "In  this 
case,  it  would  be  of  little  consequence,  whether 
the  translator  were  profoundly  skilled  in  the 
languages  or  not.  The  only  thing  of  importance 
would  be,  that  he  were  well  versed  in  the  inter- 
pretations and  comments  of  others.  This  is  so 
absurd,  that  I  cannot  allow  myself  to  think  that 
it  was  the  fixed  opinion  of  that  critic,  or  the  rule 


p,  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  375 

by  which  he  conducted  himself  in  translating  ; 
yet  it  is  hardly  possible  to  put  another  construc- 
tion upon  his  words. 

§  21.  HouBiGANT,  without  minding  the  qualifica- 
tion above  quoted,  severely  censures  the  general 
position,  that  the  obscurities  of  an  author  ought  to 
be  rendered  obscurely.  "  Obscurus,"  says  he  ^°, 
"  est  non  semel  Horatius ;  num  igitur  laudanda  ea 
"  erit  Horatii  Gallica  interpretatio,  quae  Horatium 
"  faciet  Gallico  sermone,  ubi  clarus  est,  clare,  ubi 
"  obscurus,  obscure  loquentem  ?"  I  must,  how- 
ever, say  so  much  for  Le  Clerc,  as  to  acknowl- 
edge, that  the  tases  compared  by  Houbigant,  are 
not  parallel.  Greater  freedom  may  reasonably  be 
used  with  profane  authors  than  with  the  sacred. 
If  the  general  tenour  and  connection  be  preserved 
in  the  thoughts  of  a  Greek  or  Latin  poet,  and  if 
the  diction  be  harmonious  and  elegant,  a  few  mis- 
takes about  the  import  of  words,  by  which  the 
scope  of  the  whole  is  little  affected,  will  be 
thought,  even  by  the  most  fastidious  critics,  a 
more  pardonable  fault  than  such  obscurity  as  in- 
terrupts a  reader,  and  makes  it  difficult  for  him 
to  divine  the  sense.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  a 
book  of  so  great  authority  as  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  better  that,  in  them,  the  reader  should  some- 
times be  at  a  loss  about  the  sentiment,  than  that 
he  should  have  a  false  sentiment  imposed  upon 
him  for  a  dictate  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  I  approve 
much  more  what  follows  in  Houbigant :  "  Humani 

^0  Proleg.  Cap.  V.  Art.  III. 


376  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

"  ingenii  est,  non  linguae  ciijuscunque  obscuritas, 
"  divini  sermonis  dos  perpetua,  ut  dignitas,  ita 
"  etiam  perspicuitas.  Ut  quanquam  obscura  nunc 
"  esset  Hebraica  lingua,  tamen  dubitandum  non 
"  esset  quae  sacri  autores  scripserunt,  perspicue 
"  scripsisse :  nobis  igitur  esse  maxime  elaboran- 
"  dum,  ut  quae  nunc  nobis  obscura  esse  videantur, 
"  ad  pristinam  nativamque  perspicuitatem,  quoad 
"  fieri  potest,  revocemus ;  non  autem  nos  nobis 
"  contentos  esse  debere,  si  quae  prima  specie  ob- 
"  scura  erant,  obscure  converterimus."  I  have 
already  given  my  reasons  ^^  for  thinking  that  the 
historical  style  of  the  Scriptures,  in  consequence 
of  its  greater  simplicity,  is  naturally  more  per- 
spicuous than  that  of  most  other  writings.  But 
it  is  impossible  that  their  sense  should  appear, 
even  to  men  of  profound  erudition,  with  the  same 
facility  and  clearness,  as  it  did  to  the  countrymen 
and  contemporaries  of  the  inspired  writers,  men 
familiarized  to  their  idiom,  and  well  acquainted 
with  all  the  customs  and  manners  to  which  there 
are,  in  those  writings,  incidental  allusions.  If 
then,  to  adopt  Le  Clerc's  similitude,  we  prefer 
likeness  to  the  original  before  beauty,  we  must 
endeavour  to  make  our  translation  as  perspicuous 
to  our  readers,  as  we  have  reason  to  think  the 
writings  of  Moses  were,  not  to  modern  linguists, 
but  to  the  ancient  Israelites,  and  the  writings  of 
the  Evangelists  to  the  Hellenist  Jews.  This  is 
the  only  way,  in  my  judgment,  in  which,  consis- 

81  Diss.  III. 


,,  i.J  DISSERTATIONS.  377 

tently  with  common  sense,  we  can  say  that  a  re- 
semblance, in  perspicuity,  is  preserved  in  the 
translation. 

§  22.  But,  it  may   be  asked,  Js  there  then  no 
case  whatever,  wherein  it  may  be  pardonable,  or 
even  proper,  to  be,  in  some  degree,  obscure  ?     I 
acknowledge  that  there    are   such  cases,  though 
they  occur   but  seldom   in   the   historical  books. 
First,  it  is  pardonable  to  be  obscure,  or  even  am- 
biguous, when  it  is  necessary  for  avoiding  a  greater 
evil.    I  consider  it  as  a  greater  evil  in  a  translator, 
to  assign  a  meaning  merely  from  conjecture,  for 
which  he  is   coifscious  he  has  little  or  no  founda- 
tion.    In  such  cases,  the  method  taken  by  Casta- 
lio,  is  the  only  unexceptionable  method,  to  give  a 
literal  translation  of  the  words,  and  acknowledge 
'  our  ignorance   of  the  meaning.      For    the    same 
reason,  there  will  be  a  propriety  in  retaining  even 
some  ambiguities  in  the  version.     But  this  method 
ought   to  be   taken,   only   when   the   interpreter, 
using  his  best  judgment,  thinks  there  is  ground  to 
doubt  which  of  the  two  senses,  suggested  by  the 
words,  is  the  meaning  of  the  author.     If  the  lan- 
guage of  the  version  be  susceptible  of  the  same 
ambiguity  which  he  finds  in  the  original,  it  ought 
to  be  preserved ;  but  if  the  language  be  not  sus- 
ceptible  of  it,  which  often  happens,  the  transla- 
lator  should  insert  the  meaning  he  prefers  in  the 
text,  and  take  notice  of  the  other  in  the  notes,  or 


on  the  margin. 


378  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

I  shall  give  some  examples  of  both.  The 
Evangelist  John  says  ^^,  Hv  to  (pas  to  aXy^&Lvov  6 
(poTLlsL  TtavTa  av&goTtov  sg^ofiEvov  sis  tov  icodfiov. 
Here  we  have  an  ambiguity  in  the  word  sg^ofxe- 
vov,  which  may  be  either  the  nominative  neuter, 
agreeing  with  (pas,  or  the  accusative  masculine, 
agreeing  with  av&ganov.  Our  translators  have 
preferred  the  latter  meaning,  and  said,  That  ivas 
the  true  light,  which  lighteth  every  man  that  Com- 
eth into  the  world.  It  was  hardly  possible  to  pre- 
serve the  native  simplicity  of  the  expression,  and 
retain  the  ambiguity  in  English.  I  have,  there- 
fore, as  I  preferred  the  former  meaning,  rendered 
the  verse,  The  true  light  was  he,  who  coming  into 
the  world,  enlighteneth  every  man,  and  mentioned 
the  other  sense  in  the  note,  assigning  the  reasons 
which  determined  my  choice. 

Another  Evangelist  represents  our  Lord  as  say- 
ing ^^  Aeya  vfiiv,  'otl  vfieis  ol  axoXov&i^ciavTSs  fiol, 
£v  TTi  TtaXLyyevsctKt,,  OTav  xa&Kj}^  ^o  mos  tov  av&ga- 
Ttov  £7tL  &gavov  So^s  avTov  xad^Ldtad^s  xai  v^blg  sjti 
daSsxa  S'gavovs,  xgivovTts  rag  Sadsxa  (pvXas  tov 
lagariX.  Here  the  clause  ev  ti^  TtaXi^^ysvsoLa,  may 
be  construed,  either  with  the  preceding  words,  or 
with  the  following.  In  the  former  of  these  ways 
our  translators  have  understood  them,  and  have, 
therefore,  rendered  the  verse,  /  say  unto  you,  that 
ye  which  have  follotved  me  in  the  regeneration  ; 
when  the  Soti  of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his 
glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  tioelve  thrones^  judging 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.    I  think,  on  the  contrary, 

82  John,  i.  9.  83  Mattb.  xix.  28. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  379 

that  the  words  ought  to  be  understood  in  the  lat- 
ter way,  and  have,  therefore,  translated  them  in 
this  manner  .•  /  say  unto  yoii^  that  at  the  renovation^ 
when  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  seated  on  his  glo- 
rious throne,  ye  my  folloivers,  sitting  also  upon 
twelve  thrones,  shall  judge  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel.  For  this  choice  I  have  assigned  my  rea- 
sons in  the  note  on  the  passage. 

§  23.  But  it  sometimes  happens,  that  the  pre- 
ference of  one  of  the  meanings  of  an  equivocal 
word  or  phrase,  cannot  be  determined  with  proba- 
bility sufficient  to  satisfy  a  candid  critic.  In  this 
case,  when  the  version  can  be  rendered  equally 
susceptible  of  the  different  meanings,  candour  it- 
self requires,  that  the  interpreter  give  it  this  turn. 
By  so  doing,  he  puts  the  unlearned  reader  on  the 
same  footing  on  which  the  learned  reader  is  put 
by  the  author.  It  does  not  often  happen  that  this 
is  possible,  but  it  happens  sometimes.  The  word 
aiav  may  denote,  either  the  world,  in  the  largest 
acceptation,  or  the  age,  state,  or  dispensation  of 
things,  answering  nearly  to  the  Latin  seculum. 
There  are  some  passages  in  the  New  Testament, 
on  which  probable  arguments  may  be  advanced 
in  favour  of  each  interpretation.  Nay,  some  have 
plausibly  contended,  that  in  the  prophetic  style, 
there  is  no  impropriety  in  admitting  both  senses. 
Now,  by  rendering  aiav,  in  those  doubtful  cases, 
state,  the  same  latitude  is  given  the  sentiment 
in  English,  which  the  words  have  in  the  original. 


380  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

See  the  note  on  this  passage  in  Matthew  ^^  ovx 

afed^^asrat  avxa,  ovis  ev  to  vvv  aiavt,  ovre  ev  ra 

/isXXovTi,  which  I  have   rendered,  will  never    be 

pardoned,  either  in  the  present  state,  or   in  the 

future. 

§  24.  There  are,  moreover,  a  few  instances,  in 
which  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  is  an  inten- 
tional   obscurity.      In  these   it  is   plain,  that  the 
same  degree  of  darkness   which  is  found   in  the 
original  ought,  as  far  as  possible,  to  be  preserved 
in  the  version.     Predictions  are  rarely  intended  to 
be  perfectly  understood  till  after  their  fulfilment, 
and  are  intended  to  be  then  understood  by  means 
of  their  fulfilment.     When  our  Lord  said  to  his 
disciples,  in  his  last  consolatory  discourse  ^^,  With- 
in a  little  while  ye  shall  not  see  me,  a  little  while 
after  ye  shall  see  me,  because  I  go  to  the  Father, 
we  learn,  from  what  follows,  that  they  did  not  un- 
derstand  him.      Yet,  though   he   perceived   they 
were  puzzled,  he  did  not  think  proper  to  clear  up 
the  matter;  but,  that  his  words  might  make  the 
deeper  impression  upon  their  minds,, he  mentioned 
some  additional  circumstances,  the  triumph  of  the 
world,  the  sorrow  of  the  disciples  at  first,  and  joy 
afterwards.     He  knew*  that  his  death  and  resur- 
rection, which  were  soon  to  follow,  would  totally 
dissipate  all  doubts   about  his  meaning.     It  must 
be  injudicious,  therefore,  to  render  the  verse  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no  room,  to  persons  in 
their   circumstances,   for   doubt    and    perplexity. 
Yet  in  one  version  it  is  thus  translated :    "  In  a 

S4  Matth.  xii.  32.  ^5  John,  xvi.  16. 


r.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  381 

"  very  little  time  you  will  not  see  me — in  a  very 
"  little  time  you  will  see  me  again — for  I  am  go- 
"  ing  to  the  Father,  shortly  to  return."  The  last 
clause,  shortly  to  return^  for  which  there  is  no 
warrant  in  the  original,  removes  the  difficulty  at 
once,  and  consequently,  makes  the  disciples  ap- 
pear, in  the  subsequent  verses,  in  a  very  strange 
light,  as  being  at  a  loss  to  understand  what  is 
expressed  in  the  clearest  manner.  It  holds,  there- 
fore, true  in  general  that,  in  translating  prophecy, 
we  ought  to  avoid  giving  the  version  either  more 
or  less  light  than  is  found  in  the  original.  The 
anonymous  translator  often  errs  in  this  way. 
Thus,  in  the  prophecy  on  mount  Olivet,  where 
our  Lord  says^®.  These  things  must  happen,  but 
the  end  is  not  yet,  the  last  clause,  ovna  saji  to 
teXos,  he  renders,  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  is  not 
yet.  There  is  nothing  answering  to  the  words  of 
the  Jewish  age  in  the  Gospel.  It  is  not  certain 
that  the  word  ifAos  here  relates  to  the  same  event 
which  is  called  avvTsXEia.  rov  aiavog  a  little  be- 
fore ^^  At  any  rate,  there  is  no  mention  of  Jews, 
or  Jewish,  in  the  whole  prophecy.  Nay,  if  it 
were  absolutely  certain,  that  the  meaning  is  what' 
this  interpreter  has  expressed,  it  would  be  wrong 
to  render  it  so,  because  we  have  reason  to  con- 
clude, that  it  was  not  without  design  that  our 
Lord,  on  that  occasion,  employed  more  general 
terms. 

86  Matth.  xxiv.  6.  ^^  Ver.  3. 

VOL.  n.  48 


382  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

§  25.  In  some  cases,  it  is  particularly  unsuit- 
able to  be  more  explicit  than  the  sacred  authors, 
how  certain  soever  we  be  that  we  express  the 
meaning.  A  little  reflection  must  satisfy  every 
reasonable  person,  that  events,  depending  on 
the  agency  of  men,  cannot,  with  propriety,  be 
revealed,  so  as  to  be  perfectly  intelligible  to 
those  on  w^hose  agency  they  depend.  For,  if  we 
suppose  that  the  things  predicted,  are  such  as 
they  would  not  knowingly  be  the  instruments  of 
executing,  either  it  will  be  in  their  power  to  de- 
feat the  intention  of  the  prophecy,  or  they  must 
be  over-ruled  in  their  actions  by  some  blind  fatal- 
ity, and  consequently  cannot  be  free  agents  in 
accomplishing  the  prediction.  Neither  of  these 
suits  the  methods  of  Providence.  God  does  not 
force  the  wills  of  his  creatures  ;  but  he  makes 
both  their  errors  and  their  vices  conduce  to  effect 
his  wise  and  gracious  purposes.  This  conduct 
of  Providence  was  never  more  eminently  display- 
ed, than  in  what  related  to  the  death  and  suffer- 
ings of  the  Son  of  God.  The  predictions  of  the 
ancient  prophets  are  so  apposite,  and  so  qlearly 
explained  by  the  events,  that  we  are  at  no  loss 
to  apply  them  ;  nay,  we  find  some  difficulty  in 
conceiving  how  they  could  fail  of  being  under- 
stood by  those  who  were  the  instruments  of  their 
accomplishment.  Yet,  that  they  were  misunder- 
stood by  them,  we  have  the  best  authority  to 
affirm  :  I  wot,  says  Peter  ^^,  to  the  people,  of  Jeru- 
salem, who  had,  with  clamour,  demanded  of  Pilate 

88  Acts,  iii.  17,  18. 


p.  ,.]  DISSERTATIONS.  383 

the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  that,  through  ignorance, 
ye  did  it,  as  did  also  your  rulers  ;  but  those  things 
which  God  before  had  shelved,  by  the  mouth  of  all 
his  Prophets,  that  Christ  should  suffer,  he  hath  so 
fulfilled.  The  predictions  in  the  Gospel  are  con- 
veyed in  the  same  idiom,  and  under  the  like  fig- 
urative expressions,  as  are  those  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. And,  though  many  of  the  events  foretold, 
which  are  now  accomplished,  have  put  the  mean- 
ing of  such  prophecies  beyond  all  question,  we 
ought  not,  in  translating  them,  to  add  any  light 
borrowed,  merely,  from  the  accomplishment.  By 
so  doing,  we  may  even  materially  injure  the  histo- 
ry, and  render  ^ose  mistakes  incredible,  which,  on 
a  more  exact  representation  of  things,  as  they  must 
have  appeared  at  the  time,  were  entirely  natural. 

'  §  26.  The  commentator's  business  ought  never 
to  be  confounded  with  the  translator's.  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  latter  to  give  every  thing  to  his  read- 
ers, as  much  as  possible,  with  the  same  advan- 
tages, neither  more  nor  fewer,  with  which  the 
sacred  author  gave  it  to  his  contemporaries. 
There  were  some  things  which  our  Saviour  said, 
as  well  as  some  things  that  he  did,  to  his  disciples, 
which  it  was  not  intended  that  they  should  under- 
stand then,  but  which,  if  taken  notice  of  then,  and 
remembered,  they  would  understand  afterwards. 
These  things,  said  our  Lord^^  I  have  spoken  to  you 
in  figures;  the  time  cometh  when  I  shall  no  long- 
er speak  to  you  in  figures  ;  but  instruct  you  plainly 

89  John,  xvi.  25. 


384  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

concerning  the  Father.  It  was,  therefore,  not  in- 
tended that  every  thing  in  the  Gospel  should  be 
announced,  at  first,  with  plainness.  It  is,  withal, 
certain,  that  the  veil  of  figurative  language,  thrown 
over  some  things,  was  employed  to  shade  them, 
only  for  a  time,  and,  in  the  end,  to  conduce  to 
their  evidence  and  greater  lustre.  For  there  was 
710  secret  that  was  not  to  be  discovered  ;  nor  was 
aught  concealed  which  was  not  to  be  diviilged^^. 
Now,  justice  is  not  done  to  this  wise  conduct  of  the 
Spirit,  unless  things  be  represented,  in  this  respect 
also,  as  nearly  as  possible,  in  his  own  manner. 
And  those  translators  who  have  not  attended  to 
this,  have  sometimes,  by  throwing  more  light  than 
was  proper  on  particular  expressions,  involved  the 
whole  passage  in  greater  darkness,  and  made  it 
harder  to  account  for  the  facts  recorded. 

§  27.  At  the  same  time,  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  the  case  of  prophecy  is  in  a  great  measure 
peculiar ;  and  we  have  reason  to  think,  that  there 
is  hardly  any  other  case  in  which  we  are  in  dan- 
ger of  exceeding  in  perspicuity.  Even  in  those 
places  of  the  Gospel,  about  the  meaning  of  which 
expositors  are  divided,  there  is  ground  to  believe, 
that  there  is  no  intended  obscurity  in  the  original ; 
but  that  the  difficulty  arises  merely  from  an  allu- 
sion to  some  custom,  or  an  application  of  some 
term,  at  that  time  familiar,  but  at  present,  not 
easily  discovered.  Where  the  translator's  in  the 
dark,  his  version  ought  not  to  be  decisive.     But 

90  Mark,  iv.  22. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  385 

where  he  has  rational  grounds  for  forming  a  judg- 
ment, what  he  judges  to  be  the  sense,  he  ought  to 
express  with  clearness. 

§  28.  I  HAVE  oftener  than  onc€  had  occasion  to 
observe,  that  wherever  propriety,  perspicuity, 
and  the  idiom  of  the  tongue  employed,  permit  an 
interpreter  to  be  close,  the  more  he  is  so,  the  bet- 
ter. But  what  it  is  to  be  literal,  I  have  never 
yet  seen  defined  by  any  critic  or  grammarian, 
or  even,  by  any  advocate  for  the  literal  manner 
of  translating.  A  resemblance  in  sound,  by  the 
frequent  use  of  derivatives  from  the  words  of  the 
original,  cannot,*^  where  there  is  no  coincidence  in 
the  sense,  confer  on  a  translator,  even  the  slight 
praise  of  being  literal.  Who  would  honour  with 
this  denomination  one  who,  in  translating  Scrip- 
ture, should  render  aviicpavio.  symphony,  vTtsgjioXrf 
hyperbole,  Ttago^vctfios  paroxysm,  (pagfAaxsia  phar- 
macy, civxo(pavTHv  to  play  the  sycophatit,  jtaga" 
5o|a  paradoxes,  iSiaTrfg  idiot  ?  Yet  some  of  the 
consecrated  words  have  no  better  title  to  this 
distinction. 

I  once  met  with  a  criticism,  I  do  not  remember 
where,  on  a  passage  in  the  Epistle  of  James  ^\ 
in  which  God  is  called  the  Father  of  lights,  nag  a 
ovx  BVL  TtagaXXayri,  tj  rgoTtris  anoaxiaafia.  The 
critic  profoundly  supposes,  that  the  sacred  pen- 
man, though  writing  to  the  Christian  converts,  of 
the  dispersed  Jews,  amongst  whom  there  certainly 

^^  James,  i.  17.  ♦* 


386  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

were  not  many  noble,  or  rich,  or  learned,  address- 
ed them  in  the  language  of  astronomy ;  and  there- 
fore renders  nagaXXayyi  parallax,  and  tqojit^  tropic. 
If  this  be  to  translate  very  literally,  it  is  also  to 
translate  very  absurdly.  And  surely  the  plea  is 
not  stronger,  that  is  urged  in  favour  of  those  in- 
terpreters who,  without  regard  to  usage  in  their 
own  language,  scrupulously  exhibit,  in  their  ver- 
sions, the  etymologies  of  their  author's  words, 
especially  compound  words.  Such,  if  they  would 
preserve  consistency,  ought  to  translate  evrf&r^s 
well-bred,  gadtovgyia  easy  work,  orngfioXo^os  seed- 
gatherer,  navovgyog  all-ivorking,  yXaaaoxofiov 
tongue-case,  and  jiafiTtoXvg  all-many.  The  similar 
attempts  of  some,  at  analysing  phrases,  or  idio- 
matical  expressions,  in  their  version,  which  are 
but  a  looser  sort  of  composition,  fall  under  the 
same  denomination.  Both  the  above  methods, 
though  differing  greatly  from  each  other,  are  oc- 
casionally patronized  as  literal,  by  the  same  per- 
sons. There  is  a  third  particular,  which  is  con- 
sidered as,  perhaps,  more  essential  to  this  mode 
of  interpreting,  than  either  of  the  foi'mer,  and 
which  consists  in  tracing,  as  nearly  as  possible, 
in  the  version,  the  construction  and  arrangement 
of  the  original.  This,  if  not  carried  to  excess,  is 
less  exceptionable  than  either  of  the  former. 

§  29.  But,  it  deserves  our  notice,  that  trans- 
lators attempting,  in  this  way,  to  keep  dosely  to 
the  letter,  have  sometimes  failed,  through  their 
attending  more  to  words  and  particles,  considered 


0 

p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  387 

separately,  than  to  the  combination  and  construc- 
tion of  the  whole  sentence.  Thus,  the  words  of  our 
Lord  ^^,  JJas  yag  'o  aLzav  Aa^/3avft,  xat  ^o  ^rfrav 
[evgiaxsL,  as  rendered  in  the  common  translation. 
For  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth ;  and  he  that 
seeketh,  Jindeth ;  err  in  this  very  way.  [O  ^t^tcov 
^evQKjxsi,  taken  by  itself  as  a  separate  sentence, 
cannot  be  better  rendered  than  he  that  seeketh, 
Jindeth.  But  in  this  passage  it  is  only  a  clause  of 
a  sentence.  The  words  na?  yag,  wherewith  the 
sentence  begins,  relate  equally  to  both  clauses. 
The  version  here  given.  For  whosoever  asketh,  ob- 
taineth ;  whosoever  seeketh,  Jindeth,  is,  in  fact, 
therefore,  more  'close  to  the  letter,  as  well  as  to 
the  sense  :  for,  by  the  syntactic  order,  the  second 
clause  evidently  is  Tras  "^o  ^r^jav  "^sygiaxsi.  The 
Vulgate  is  both  literal  and  just,  Omnis  enim  qui 
'  petit,  accipit ;  et  qui  queer  it,  invenit.  Here  omnis, 
like  Ttag,  belongs  to  both  members.  Had  our 
translators,  in  the  same  manner,  said.  Every  one 
that  asketh,  receiveth ;  and  that  seeketh,  Jindeth ; 
leaving  out  the  pronoun  he,  they  would  have  done 
justice  both  to  the  form  and  to  the  sense.  But 
they  have  chosen  rather  to  follow  Beza,  who  says, 
Quisquis  enim  petit,  accipit ;  et  qui  qucerit,  invenit; 
where,  though  the  second  member  is  the  same  as 
in  the  Vulgate,  the  expression  in  the  Gospel  is  in 
effect  differently  translated,  as  quisquis  cannot, 
like  omnis,  be  supplied  before  qui.  I  acknowl- 
edge that  there  is  not   a    material  difference  in 

^^  Matth.  vil.  8.     See  the  note  on  that  verse. 


388  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

meaning.  Only  the  second  clause  in  Beza  is  ex- 
pressed more  weakly,  and  appears  not  to  affirm  so 
universally  as  the  first  clause.  The  clause,  as  ex- 
pressed  in  Greek,  has  no  such  appearance. 

§  30.  For  a  similar  reason,  the  words  ojtov  'o 
axaXs^  avTcov  ov  TsXevza,  ycai  to  nvg  ov  a^evvvraL^^, 
are,  in  my  opinion,  more  strictly  rendered,  ivhere 
their  vjorm  dieth  not^  and  their  Jire  is  not  quenched^ 
than  as  in  the  common  version,  the  Jire  is  not 
quenched.  The  manner  in  which  the  clauses  are 
here  connected,  rendered  the  repetition  of  the 
pronoun  in  the  second  clause  unnecessary,  be- 
cause in  Greek  it  is  in  such  cases  understood  as 
repeated.  Whereas  in  English,  when  the  Jire  is 
said,  the  pronoun  cannot  be  understood.  It  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  article,  which  is  never  by  us  joined 
with  the  possessive  pronoun.  Could  we,  with 
propriety,  imitate  the  Greek  manner  entirely, 
making  the  personal  pronoun  supply  the  posses- 
sive, and  saying  where  the  worm  oj  them  dieth  not^ 
and  the  fire  is  not  quenched,  the  pronoun  might 
be  understood  in  English  as  well  as  in  Greek. 
But  such  an  idiom  with  us  would  be  harsh  and 
unnatural.  It  gives  an  additional  probability  to 
this  explanation,  that,  in  the  passage  in  the  Old 
Testament  referred  to  %  it  is  expressly  their  Jire, 
as  well  as  their  worm.  In  Hebrew  the  affixes  are 
never  left  to  be  supplied.     This  remark  regards 

93  Mark,  ix.  44.  46.  48.  ^^  Isaiah,  Ixvi.  24. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  389 

only  the  exhibition  of  the  construction,  for  the 
sense  is  not  affected  by  the  difference. 

§  31.  The  words  of  John,  O  jroiav  jrfv  dixaiodv- 
vi^v  Sixaios  £(JTi,  xad'og  sxeivog  dtxaio?  sotl  ^^,  are, 
in  my  judgment,  more  literally  rendered,  He  that 
doth  righteousness  is  righteous,  even  as  God  is 
righteous,  than  as  it  stands  in  the  English  transla- 
tion, even  as  he  is  righteous.  The  English  pro- 
noun he  does  not  correspond  to  the  Greek  sxeivos 
so  situated.  In  English,  the  sentence  appears,  to 
most  readers,  a  mere  identical  proposition :  in 
Greek  it  has  no  such  appearance,  sxslvos  plainly 
referring  us  to  a  remote  antecedent.  As  no  pro- 
noun, in  our  language,  will  here  answer  the  pur- 
pose, the  only  proper  recourse  is  to  the  noun 
whose  place  it  occupies  ^^  The  intention  of  the 
three  examples  just  now  given,  is  to  show  that, 
when  the  construction  of  the  sentence  is  taken 
into  the  account,  that  is  often  found  a  more  literal 
(if  by  this  be  meant  closer)  translation,  which,  to  a 
superficial  view,  appears  less  so. 

§  32.  I  SHALL  here  take  notice  of  another  case 
in  which  we  may  translate  literally,  nay,  justly, 
and  perspicuously,  and  yet  fail  greatly,  in  respect 
of  energy.  This  arises  from  not  attending  to  the 
minute,  but  often  important,  differences  in  struc- 
ture, between  the  language  of  the  original,  and 
that  of  the   version.      Of  many  such  differences 

95  1  John,  iii.  7.  96  L^ke,  ix.  34. 

VOL.  n.  49 


390  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

between  Greek  and  English,  I  shall  mention  at 
present  only  one.  We  find  it  necessary  to  intro- 
duce some  of  the  personal  pronouns  almost  as 
often  as  we  introduce  a  verb.  Not  only  does  our 
idiom  require  this,  but  our  want  of  inflections  con- 
strains us  to  take  this  method  for  conveying  the 
meaning.  In  the  ancient  languages  this  is  quite 
imnecessary,  as  the  inflection  of  the  verb,  in  al- 
most every  case,  virtually  expresses  the  pronoun. 
There  are  certain  cases,  nevertheless,  wherein  the 
pronoun  is  also  employed  in  those  languages. 
But,  in  those  cases,  it  has,  for  the  most  part,  an 
emphasis  which  the  corresponding  pronoun  with 
us,  because  equally  necessary  in  every  case,  is  not 
fitted  for  expressing.  Thus  our  Lord  says  to  his 
disciples  ^^,  Ov^'^vfieis  ^s  s^eXs^aa&e,  aXX  sya  e^sXs- 
^ufir^v  'vfias,  which  is  rendered  in  the  common 
version.  Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  choseti 
you.  This  version  is  at  once  literal,  just,  and  per- 
spicuous ;  yet  it  has  not  the  energy  of  the  original. 
The  stress  laid  on  'vfisis  and  s^a,  which  are  here 
contrasted  with  manifest  intention,  because  the 
words  are  otherwise  superfluous,  is  but  feebly,  if 
at  all,  represented  by  the  pronouns  ye  and  /, 
which  are,  in  English,  necessary  attendants  on  the 
verbs.  Our  translators  could  not  have  rendered 
differently,  had  the  words  been  Ov  fis  e^sXe^aad-s, 
alX  f|f Af|a^?p  'vfiag.  Yet  every  reader  of  taste 
will  perceive  that  this  expression  is  not  nearly  so 
emphatical.     I  might  add  that  such  a  reader  will 

97  John,  XV.  16. 


p.  I.]  DISSERTATIONS.  391 

be  sensible,  that  even  so  slight  a  circumstance  as 
beginning  the  sentence  with  the  negative  particle, 
adds  to  the  emphasis,  and  that  'vfxsig  ov  would  not 
have  been  so  expressive  as  ovx  'vfxei?.  To  do  jus- 
tice, therefore,  to  the  energy,  as  well  as  to  the 
sense  of  the  original,  it  is  necessary,  in  modern 
languages,  to  give  the  sentence  a  different  turn. 
The  Port  Royal,  and  after  them  Simon,  and  other 
French  translators,  have  done  this  successfully  by 
rendering  it,  Ce  n^ est  pas  vous  qui  m'avez  choisi., 
mais  c'est  moi  qui  vous  ai  choisi.  The  like  turn 
has  been  given  by  some  very  properly  to  the 
words  in  English,  It  was  tiot  you  who  chose  me,  but 
it  was  I  tvho  chose  you. 

I  recollect  one  instance  in  the  Old  Testament, 
wherein  our  translators  have  taken  this  method. 
Joseph,  after  he  had  discovered  himself  to  his 
'  brethren,  observing  that  the  remembrance  of  their 
guilt  overwhelmed  them  with  terror  and  confu- 
sion ;  in  order  to  compose  their  spirits,  says  to 
them^^  It  ivas  not  you  that  sent  me  hither,  but 
God.  The  expression  in  the  Greek  translation  is 
perfectly  similar  to  that  above  quoted  from  the 
Gospel.  Ov)^  vfiELs  lis  aTtsaxaXxaTB  '«5f,  aXX  r^  6 
0BOS.     In  the  original  Hebrew  it  is  not  less  so  : 

>^S  D'fii>^'  annSi^*  ^it^  n^n  o  p'SiSKn.    i  do 

not  say,  however,  that  the  pronoun,  when  mention- 
ed, is,  in  every  case,  emphatical,  or  that,  in  every 
case,  it  would  be  proper  to  deviate  from  the  more 
simple  manner  of  translating. 

98  Gen.  xlv.  8. 


392  •     ^  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

§  33.  Thus  much  shall  suffice  for  what  regards 
those  leading  rules  in  translating,  which  may  be 
judged  necessary  for  securing  propriety,  perspi- 
cuity, and  energy ;  and,  as  far  as  possible,  in  a 
consistency  with  these,  for  doing  justice  to  the  par- 
ticular manner  of  the  author  translated ;  and  for 
bestowing  on  the  whole,  that  simple  kind  of  deco- 
ration, which  is  suited  to  its  character.  This  fin- 
ishes the  first  part  of  this  Dissertation  relating  to 
the  matter  or  principal  qualities  to  be  attended  to 
in  translating. 


PART  II. 


THE    READINGS    OF    THE    ORIGINAL    HERE    FOLLOWED. 

I  SHALL  now  subjoin  a  few  remarks  on  the  read- 
ings, where  there  is,  in  the  original,  a  diversity  of 
reading,  which  are  here  preferred.  • 

Were  it  in  our  power  to  recur  to  the  autogra- 
phies of  the  sacred  penmen,  that  is,  to  the  manu- 
scripts written  by  themselves,  or  b}^  those  whom 
they  employed,  to  whom  they  dictated,  and  whose 
work  they  supervised,' there  could  be  no  question 
that  we  ought  to  recur  to  them,  as  the  only  infalli- 
ble standards  of  divine  truth.  But  those  identical 
writings,  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  are  no- 
where now  to  be  found.  What  we  have,  in  their 
stead,  are  the  copies  of  copies  (through  how- many 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  393 

successions,  it  is  impossible  to  say,)  which  were 
originally  taken  from  those  autographies.     Now, 
though  Christians  are  generally  agreed  in  ascrib- 
ing infallibility  to  the  sacred  penmen,  no  Christian 
society,  or  individual,  that  I  know,  has  ever  yet 
ascribed  infallibility   to  the  copiers  of  the   New 
Testament.     Indeed,   some  Christians  appear  ab- 
surd enough  to   admit   thus    much   in   favour   of 
those  who  have  transcribed  the  Old  Testament ; 
about  which  they  seem   to   imagine,   that  Provi- 
dence has  been  more    solicitous  than    about  the 
New.     For,   in   regard   to   the   New   Testament, 
nothing   of  this   kind    has    ever   been   advanced. 
Now,  what  has'  been  said  of  the  transcribers  of 
the  New^  Testament  may,  with  equal  certainty,  be 
affirmed  of  the  editors  and  printers.     It  is,  nev- 
ertheless, true,  that,  since  the  invention  of  print- 
ing,  we    have    greater    security   than    formerly, 
against   that    incorrectness  which   multiplies    the 
diversities  of  reading ;  inasmuch  as  now,  a  whole 
printed    edition,    consisting    of    many    thousand 
copies,  is  not  exposed  to  so  many  errors,  as  a  sin- 
gle written  copy  was  before.     But  this  invention 
is  comparatively  modern.     Besides,  the   effect  it 
had,  in  point  of  correctness,  was  only  to  check  the 
progress,   or,  more  properly,  to  prevent  the  in- 
crease of  the  evil,  by  giving  little  scope  for  new 
variations.      But   it   could  have  no  retrospective 
effect  in  rectifying  those  already  produced. 

§  2.  It  behoved  the  first  editors  of  the  New 
Testament  in  print,  to  employ  the  manuscripts 
of   which  they   were    possessed,    with    all    their 


^^7 


394  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

imperfections.      And  who  will  pretend  that  Car- 
dinal  Ximenes,   Erasmus,   Robert   Stephens,  and 
the  other  early  publishers  of  the  New  Testament, 
to  whom  the  republic  of  letters  is  indeed  much 
indebted,  were  under  an  infallible  direction  in  the 
choice  of  manuscripts,  or  in  the  choice  of  read- 
ings in  those  passages  wherein   their  copies  dif- 
fered from  one  another  ?       That  they   were  not 
all  under  infallible  guidance,  we  have  ocular  de- 
monstration, as,  by  comparing  them,  we  see  that, 
in  many  instances,  they  differ  among  themselves. 
And  if  only  one  was  infallibly  directed,  which  of 
them,  shall  we  say,  was   favoured  with  this  hon- 
ourable distinction  ?       But,  in  fact,  though  there 
are    many    Avell-meaning    persons,    who    appear 
dissatisfied   with    the    bare    mention    of    various 
readings  of  the  sacred  text,  and  much  more  with 
the  adoption  of  any  reading  to  which  they  have 
not  been  accustomed,  there  is  none  who  has  yet 
ventured  to  ascribe  infallibilit}^,  or  inspiration,  to 
any  succession  of   copyists,   editors,   or   printers. 
Yet,  without  this,  to  what  purpose  complain  ?     Is 
it  possible  to  dissemble   a  circumstance  clear  as 
day,  that  different  copies  read  some  things  differ- 
ently ?    a   circumstance   of    which   every   person 
who,  with  but  a  moderate  share  of  knowledge,  will 
take   the    trouble    to    reflect,  must  be    convinced 
that  it  was  inevitable  ?    Or,  if  it  were  possible  to 
dissemble  it,  ought  this  truth  to  be  dissembled  ? 
If,  in  any  instance  wherein  the  copies  differ,  there 
appear,  upon  inquiry,  sufficient  reason  to  believe, 
that  the  reading  of  one  copy,  or  number  of  copies, 
is  the  dictate  of  inspiration,  and  that  the  readings 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  395 

of  the  rest,  though  the  same  with  that  of  the 
printed  edition  most  in  use,  is  not  ;  will  the  cause 
of  truth  be  better  served  by  dissimulation,  in  ad- 
hering to  a  maxim  of  policy,  merely  human,  or  by 
conveying,  in  simplicity,  to  the  best  of  our  power, 
the  genuine  sense  of  the  Spirit  ?  The  former 
methods  savours  too  much  of  those  pious  frauds 
which,  though  excellent  props  to  superstition,  in 
ignorant  and  barbarous  ages,  ought  never  to  be 
employed  in  the  service  of  true  religion.  Their 
assistance  she  never  needs,  and  disdains  to  use. 
Let  us  then  conclude  that,  as  the  sacred  writings 
have  been  immensel}^  multiplied,  by  the  copies 
which  have  been  taken  from  the  original  manu- 
scripts, and  by  the  transcripts  successively  made 
from  the  copies  ;  the  intrusion  of  mistakes  into 
the  manuscripts,  and  thence  into  printed  editions, 
was,  without  a  chain  of  miracles,  absolutely  un- 
avoidable. 

§  3.  It  may  be  thought  that  the  transmission, 
through  so  many  ages,  merely  by  transcribing,  in 
order  to  supply  the  place  of  those  copies  which, 
from  time  to  time,  have  been  destroyed  or  lost, 
must  have,  long  before  now,  greatly  corrupted  the 
text,  and  involved  the  whole  in  uncertainty.  Yet, 
in  fact,  the  danger  here  is  not  near  so  great  as,  at 
first,  it  would  appear.  The  multiplication  of  the 
copies,  the  very  circumstance  which  occasions  the 
increase  of  the  evil,  has,  in  a  great  measure,  as  it 
began  very  early,  brought  its  own  remedy  along 
with   it,   namely,    the   opportunity   it   affords,   of 


396  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

collatiog  those  which   have   been   made   from  dif- 
ferent ancient  exemplars.     For,  let  it  be  observed, 
that  different  transcribers  from  a  correct  standard, 
rarely  fall  into  the   same  errors.       If,  therefore, 
which  is  highly  probable,  as  almost  all  those  writ- 
ings were  originally  intended  for  the  use  of  mul- 
titudes, several  copies  were    made  directly  from 
the  writings  of  the  sacred  penmen,  those  trans- 
cripts, when  the  common  archetype  was  lost,  would 
serve,  when  collated,  to  correct  one  another :  and, 
in  like  manner,  the  copies  taken  from  one  would 
serve  to  correct  the  copies  taken  from  another. 
There  are  several  considerations,  arising  from  ex- 
ternal circumstances,  from  which,  among  the  dif- 
ferent readings  of  different  manuscripts,  the  pref- 
erence   may,   with   probability,    be    determined ; 
such   are  the  comparative  antiquity,  number,  and 
apparent    accuracy    of    the     copies     themselves. 
There  are  considerations,  also,  arising  from  inter- 
nal qualities  in  the  readings  compared  ;  such  as, 
conformity  to  the  grammatical  construction,  to  the 
common   idiom   of    the  language,  to   the  special 
idiom   of  the   Hellenists,   to   the   manner   of  the 
writer,  and  to  the  scope  of  the  context.     Need  I 
subjoin  the  judgments  that  may  be  formed,  by  a 
small  change  in  the  pointing,  or  even  in  dividing 
the   words  ?  for,  in  these  things,  the   critic  is  en- 
titled to   some  latitude,  as,   in   the    most  ancient 
manuscripts,  there  were  neither  points  nor  accents, 
and  hardly  a  division  of  the  words. 

Next  to  the   aid  of  manuscripts,  is  that  of  the 
Greek  commentators,  who  give  us,  in  their  com- 


1^1 


I.]  DISSERTATIONS.        -  397 

mentaries,  the  text,  as  they  found  it  at  the  time  ; 
and,  next  to  this,  we  have  that  of  ancient  transla- 
tions. I  do  not  mean  the  aid  they  give  for  dis- 
covering the  import  of  the  original  terms  ;  for,  in 
this  respect,  modern  versions  ^iiay  be  equally 
profitable  ;  but,  their  leading  to  the  discovery  of  a 
different  reading  in  the  manuscripts  from  which 
they  were  made.  In  this  way,  modern  versions 
are  of  no  use  to  the  critic,  the  world  being  still  in 
possession  of  their  originals.  Next  to  ancient 
translations,  though  very  far  from  being  of  equal 
weight,  are  the  quotations  made  by  the  Fathers, 
and  early  ecclesiastical  writers.  Of  the  degrees 
of  regard  due,  respectively,  to  the  several  assist- 
ances above  named,  it  would  be  superfluous  here 
to  discourse,  after  what  has  been  written  by  Wal- 
ton, Mill,  Wetstein,  Simon,  Michaelis,  Kennicott, 
and  many  others.  As  we  can  ascribe  to  no  man- 
uscript, edition,  or  translation,  absolute  perfection ; 
we  ought  to  follow  none  of  them  implicitly.  As 
little  ought  we  to  reject  the  aid  of  any.  On  these 
principles  I  have  proceeded  in  this  version.  Even 
the  English  translators  have  not  scrupled,  in  a 
few  instances,  to  prefer  a  manuscript  reading  to 
that  of  the  printed  editions,  and  the  reading  of  the 
Vulgate  to  that  of  the  Greek.  Of  the  former, 
I  remember  two  examples  ^^  in  the  Gospels, 
wherein  our  translators  have  adopted  a  reading 
different  from  the  reading  of  the  common  Greek, 

and  also  different  from  that  of  the  Vulgate  ;  and 

/• 

''  39  Matth.  X.  10.     John,  xviii.  20. 

VOL.  II.  -50 


I*: 


39Q  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

not  a  few^^'^,  wherein  they  have  preferred  the 
latter  to  the  former,  sometimes,  in  my  opinion, 
rashly.  The  passages  are  mentioned  in  the  mar- 
gin ;  the  reader  may  compare  them  at  his  leisure, 
and  consult  the  notes  relating  to  them,  subjoined 
to  this  translation. 

§  4.  Bengelius,  though  he  consulted  manu- 
scripts, declares,  that  he  has  followed  none  in  the 
edition  he  has  given  of  the  New  Testament,  un- 
less where  they  supported  the  reading  of  some 
one,  at  least,  of  the  printed  editions.  "  This," 
says  Bowyer^%  "  is  the  greatest  deference  that 
"  was  ever  paid  to  the  press."  But,  with  all  due 
respect  to  the  judgment  of  that  worthy  and  learn- 
ed printer,  I  do  not  think  it  evidence  of  a  defer- 
ence to  the  press,  but  of  an  extravagant  deference 
to  the  first  editors  of  the  sacred  books  in  print. 
The  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  had  been 
conveyed,  by  manuscript,  for  about  fourteen  hun- 
dred years  before  the  art  of  printing  existed.  As 
it  has  never  been  pretended  that  the  first  print- 
ers, or  the  first  publishers,  were  inspired,  or  ought 
to  be  put  on  the  footing  of  Prophets,  we  cojq- 
clude,  that  if  their  editions  contain  things  not 
warranted  by  the  manuscripts  or  ancient  versions 
then  extant,  such  things  must  be  erroneous,  or, 
at    least,    apocryphal.     And,  if  every  thing   they 

100  Matth.  xii.  14.  xxv.  39.  xxvi.  15.  Mark,  vi.  56.  Luke, 
i.  35.  ii.  22.  xi.  13.     John,  xvi.  2.  xviii.  1.  15. 

101  pref.  to  his  Critical  Conjectures. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  399 

contain  may  be  found  in  some  manuscripts  or  ver- 
sions of  an  older  date,  though  not  in  all,  our  giving 
such  a  preference  to  the  readings  copied  into  the 
printed  editions,  can  proceed  from  nothing  but  a 
blind  deference  to  the  judgment  -of  those  editors, 
as  always  selecting  the  best.  Whether  they  mer- 
ited this  distinction,  the  judicious  and  impartial 
will  judge.  But  no  reasonable  person  can  hesitate 
a  moment  to  pronounce,  that  if,  of  all  the  readings 
they  had  met  with,  they  had  selected  the  worst, 
the  press  would  have  conveyed  them  down  to  us 
with  equal,  fidelity.  We  may  then  have  a  preju- 
dice in  favour  of  the  printed  editions,  because  we 
are  accustomed  to  them,  but  have  no  valid  reason 
for  preferring  them  to  manuscripts,  unless  it  arise 
from  a  well-founded  preference  of  the  first  editors 
of  the  New  Testament  to  all  other  scriptural  crit- 
'  ics,  as  men  who  had  the  best  means  of  knowing 
what  was  preferable  in  the  manuscripts,  and  who 
were  the  most  capable  of  making  a  proper  choice. 
But  hardly  will  either  be  admitted  by  those  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  state  of  this  species  of 
literature,  at  that  time,  and  since. 

§  5.  Though  not  the  first  published,  the  first 
prepared  for  publication,  was  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  by  Cardinal  Ximenes,  a  Spaniard.  The 
sentence,  formerly  quoted  from  him,  relating  to 
the  place  he  had  assigned  the  Vulgate  in  his  edi- 
tion, between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  and  his 
indecent  comparison  of  its  appearance  there,  to 
our  Lord  crucified  between   the  two  malefactors. 


400  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

do  not  serve  to  raise  our  opinion  either  of  his 
judgment,  or  of  his  impartiality.  He  boasted  of  the 
use  he  had  made  of  the  Vatican,  and  other  manu- 
scripts of  great  antiquity,  as  to  which  Wetstein  is 
not  singular  in  expressing  doubts  of  his  veracity. 

Erasmus  is  considered  as  the  second  editor. 
His  New  Testament  was  published,  but  not  print- 
ed, before  the  Complutensian.  He  made  use  of 
some  manuscripts  of  Bazil,  and  others,  which  he 
had  collected  in  different  parts ;  but  he  was  so  little 
scrupulous,  in  regard  to  the  text,  that  what  was 
illegible  in  the  only  Greek  copy,  he  seems  to  have 
had,  of  the  Apocalypse,  he  supplied,  by  translating 
back  into  Greek  from  the  Vulgate.  He  published 
several  editions  of  this  work,  the  two  or  three  last 
of  which  he  brought  to  a  greater  conformity  to 
the  Complutensian  printed  at  Alcala,  than  his 
three  first  were. 

The  third  editor  of  note,  (for  I  pass  ov6r  those 
who  did  little  other  than  republish  either  Ximenes 
or  Erasmus,)  was  Robert  Stephens.  He  allowed 
himself,  in  a  great  measure,  to  be  directed  by  the 
two  former  editors ;  but  not  without  using,  on 
several  occasions,  the  readings  which  he  found  in 
some  of  the  best  manuscripts  he  had  collected. 
Many  of  the  later  editions  of  the  New  Testament 
are  formed  from  some  of  his. 

Beza,  indeed,  who  was  himself  possessed  of  some 
valuable  manuscripts,  and  was  supplied,  by  Henry 
Stephens,  with  the  various  readings  which  had 
been  collected  by  his  father,  sometimes  introduced 
them  into  the  text.     But  his   choice  was  directed 


.a- 


P.  „.]  DISSERTATIONS.  401 

by  no  principle   of  criticism.     His   great  rule  of 
preference,  (as  might  be  expected  from  the   man- 
ner in  which  he   conducted  his  translation,)  was 
conformity  to  his  own  theological  system.     This 
led  him  to  introduce  variations,  sometimes  on  the 
authority  of  a  single  manuscript  of  little  or  no  ac- 
count, sometimes  without  even  that,  insomuch  that 
several  of  his  alterations  must  be  considered  as  con- 
jectural.    Yet  his  edition  has  been  much  followed 
by  Protestants.      Curcellaeus  ^^^  complains  of  him 
for  having,  by  his  own  acknowledgment,  suppress- 
ed many  readings  he  was  possessed  of.     Simon 
takes  notice  of  the   same  thing  ^^^.     And,  it  must 
be  owned,  that'Beza's  conduct,  in   other  particu- 
lars, gives  ground  to  suspect,  that  his  impartiality, 
in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  was  not  to  be  relied  on. 
The  only  other  editor  I  know,  who  has  had  re- 
■  course  to  guessing,  for  the  improvement  of  his 
text,  is  the  English  translator  in   1729,  often  be- 
fore mentioned.     He  has,  along  with  his  version, 
republished  the  Greek  text,  corrected,  as  he  pre- 
tends, from  authentic  manuscripts.     It  does  not, 
however,  appear,  that  he  has  been  guided  by  criti- 
cal principles  in  judging  of  manuscripts,  or  of  the 
preference  due  to  particular  readings.     His  chief 
rule  seems  to  have  been  their  conformity  to  his 
own  notions,  which  has  led  him  to  employ  a  bold- 
ness in  correcting  altogether  unwarrantable. 

102  pref.  to   his   edition  of  the  N.  T.     Nescio   quo   consilio, 
plurimas  quas  prae  manibus  habebat,  publico  inviderit. 

103  Hist.  Crit.  du  N.  T.  lib.  ii.  cap.  29. 


vJi 


402  PRELIMINARY  '       [d.  xu. 

§  6.    What  follows  may  serve   as  evidence  of 
this.     Dr.  Mill  was   so  much  pleased  with  a  cor- 
rection proposed  by  Bentley  ^°^  as  to  say,  "  Mihi 
"  tantopere  placet  hsec  lectio,  ut  absque  unanimi 
"  codicum  in  altera  ista  lectione  consensu,  genui- 
"  nam   eam   intrepide    pronunciarem :"  to    which 
our  editor  gives  this  brief  and  contemptuous  re- 
ply,— "  As  if  there  was  any  manuscripts  so  old  as 
"  COMMON  SENSE."     The  greatest  regard  is  doubtless 
due  to  common  sense ;  but,  where  the  subject  is 
matter   of  fact,  the  proper   province    of  common 
sense  lies  in  comparing  and  judging  the  proofs 
brought  before  it,  not  in  supplying  from  invention 
any  deficiency  m  these.     Common  sense,  or  rather 
Reason  is  the  judge  in  the  trial.      Manuscripts, 
versions,  quotations,  &c.   are  the  testimonies.     It 
would  be  a  bad  scheme  in  civil  matters  to  supercede 
the  examination  of  witnesses,  on  pretence  that  the 
sagacity    of  the   judge   rendered   it   unnecessary. 
Yet  it  might  be  pretended,  that  his  penetration-  is 
such,  that  he  can  discover,  at  a  glance,  the  truth, 
or  the  falsity,  of  the  charge,  from  the  bare  physi- 
ognomy of  the  parties.     But  can  you  imagine,  that 
people  would  think  their  lives,  liberties,  and  prop- 
j-erties,  secure  in  a  country,  where  this  were  the 
method  of  trial  }     Or  will  this  method,  think  you, 
be  found  to  answer  better  in  critical,  than  in  ju- 
dicial matters?      If,  under  the  name   of   common 
SENSE,  we  substitute  the  critic's  fancy,  in  the  room 
of  testimony  and  all   external  evidence ;  ^ve  shall 

104  The   passage,  on   which  the   correction   was  proposed,  is 
Gal.  iv.  25. 


p.  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  403 

find,  that  we  have  established  a  test  of  criticism 
which  is  infinitely  various,  not  in  different  sects 
only,  but  in  different  individuals.  The  common 
sense  of  the  aforesaid  English  editor,  and  the 
common  sense  of  Beza  (yet  neither  of  them  was 
destitute  of  this  qualit}'^,)  would,  I  am  afraid,  have 
not  very  often  coincided. 

§  7.  Shall  we  then  set  aside  reason,  or  common 
sense,  in  such  inquiries  ?  On  the  contrary,  no 
step  can  properly  be  taken  without  it.  The  judge 
is  necessary  in  the  trial,  so  are  the  witnesses :  but 
there  will  be  an  end  of  all  fairness,  and  an  intro- 
duction to  the  most  arbitrary  proceedings,  if  the 
former  be  made  to  supply  the  place  of  both.  In 
cases  of  this  kind,  we  ought  always  to  remember 
that  the  question,  wherever  any  doubt  arises,  is  a 
.question  of  fact,  not  a  question  of  right,  or  of  ab- 
stract truth.  It  is, '  What  was  said  ;'  not  '  What 
'  should  have  been  said ;'  or  '  What  we  ourselves 
'  would  have  said,'  had  we  been  in  the  author's 
place.  This  is  what  we  never  mistake  in  the  ex- 
planation of  any  pagan  writer,  or  of  any  modern, 
but  are  very  apt  to  mistake  in  the  explanation 
of  the  Bible.  If  a  Christian  of  judgment  and 
knowledge  were  translating  the  Alcoran,  there 
would  be  no  risk  of  his  confounding  things  so 
manifestly  distinct.  The  reason  is,  such  a  trans- 
lator's concern  would  only  be  to  give  the  meaning, 
of  his  author,  without  either  inquiring  or  minding, 
whether  it  were  agreeable,  or  contrary,  to  his  own 
sentiments. 


404  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

Whereas,  it  is  a  thousand  to  one  that  the  Chris- 
tian, of  whatever  denomination  he  be,  has  previ- 
ously, to  his  entering  on  the  interpretation,  gotten 
a  set  of  opinions  concerning  those  points  about 
which  Scripture  is  conversant.  As  these  opinions 
have  acquired  a  certain  firmness  through  habit, 
and  as  a  believer  in  Christianity  cannot,  consis- 
tently, maintain  tenets  which  he  sees  to  be  re- 
pugnant to  the  doctrines  contained  in  Scripture, 
he  will  find  it  easier,  (unless  possessed  of  an  un- 
common share  of  candour  and  discernment)  to 
bring,  by  his  ingenuity,  (especially  when  aided  by 
conjectural  emendations)  the  dictates  of  revela- 
tion to  a  conformity  to  his  opinions,  than  to  bring 
his  opinions  to  a  conformity  to  the  dictates  of  reve- 
lation. This  tendency  is  the  real  cause  of  so  much 
straining  as  is  sometimes  to  be  found  in  the  man- 
ner of  criticising  holy  writ ;  straining,  let  me  add, 
to  a  degree  which  we  never  see  exemplified,  in 
interpreting  any  classical  author.  In  the  latter 
we  are,  comparatively,  little  interested,  and  are 
therefore  ready  to  admit,  on  many  occasions,  that 
such  are  the  sentiments  expressed  in  his  writings, 
though  very  different  from  our  sentiments.  But  as 
Christians  will  not  admit  this  with  regard  to  the 
Bible,  they  have  often  no  other  resource,  but  either 
to  wrest  its  words,  or  to  change  their  own  opinions. 
Which  of  these  ways  will  be  oftener  taken,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  say 

§  8.  I  HAVE  often  wished  (if  such  a  person  could 
be  found)  that  an   infidel   of  sufficient  learning, 


r.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  405 

penetration,  coolness,  and  candour,  would,  merely 
for  the  sake  of  illustrating,  what  must  be  allowed, 
even  by  him,  to  be  curious  pieces  of  ancient  lit- 
erature, undertake  the  translation  of  the  sacred 
books.  Such  a  man  would  have  'no  bias  upon  his 
mind  to  induce  him  to  wrest  the  words,  in  order  to 
make  them  speak  his  own  sentiments.  And,  if  he 
had  the  genuine  spirit  of  the  philosopher,  histo- 
rian, or  antiquary,  he  would  be  solicitous  to  exhibit 
the  manners,  opinions,  customs,  and  reasonings,  of 
those  early  ages,  fairly,  as  he  found  them,  without 
adding  any  thing  of  his  own,  either  to  exalt,  or 
to  depress,  the  original.  I  should  not  think  it 
impossible  to  find  so  much  fairness  in  a  Christian 
who,  having  resided  long  in  India,  and  understood 
their  sacred  language,  should  undertake  to  trans- 
late to  us  the  Scriptures  of  the  Bramins  ;  but 
such  impartiality  in  an  infidel  living  in  a  Chris- 
tian country,  would  be,  I  fear,  a  chimerical  ex- 
pectation. 

There  is,  however,  I  acknowledge,  a  consider- 
able difference  in  the  cases.  We  view  with  dif- 
ferent eyes  the  opinions  of  remote  ages  and 
distant  nations,  from  those  wherewith  we  con- 
template the  sentiments  of  the  times  in  which,  and 
the  people  amongst  whom,  we  live.  The  obser- 
vation of  our  Loi'd^°^  holds  invariably,  He  ivho  is 
not  for  us,  is  against  us;  and  he  tvho  gather eth 
not  with  us,  scattereth.  We  find  no  examples  of 
neutrality  in  this  cause.     Whoever  is  not  a  friend 

105  Matth.  xii.  30. 
VOL.  n.  51 


40e  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

is  an  enemy:  and,  for  this  reason,  without  any 
violation  of  charity,  we  may  conclude  that  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture  is  safer  in  the  hands  of 
the  bigoted  sectary,  than  in  those  of  the  opinion- 
ative  infidel,  whose  understanding  is  blinded  by 
the  most  inflexible  and  the  most  unjust  of  all  pas- 
sions, an  inveterate  contempt.  Hatred,  when 
alone,  may  be  prevailed  on  to  inquire,  and,  in  con- 
sequence of  inquiry,  may  be  surmounted ;  but 
when  hatred  is  accompanied  with  contempt,  it 
spurns  inquiry  as  ridiculous. 

§  9.  But,  it  may  be  said,  though  this  may  be 
justly  applied  to  the  confirmed  infidel,  it  is  not 
applicable  to  the  sceptic  who,  because,  on  both 
sides  of  the  question,  he  finds  difficulties  which 
he  is  not  able  to  surmount,  is  perplexed  with 
doubts  in  relation  to  it.  I  am  sensible  of  the  dif- 
ference, and  readily  admit  that  what  I  said  of  the 
infidel,  does  not  apply  to  the  last  mentioned  char- 
acter. At  the  same  time  I  must  observe,  that 
those  just  now  described,  appear  to  be  a  very 
small  number,  and  are  not  the  people  whom  the 
world  at  present  commonly  calls  sceptics.  This 
on  the  contrary,  like  the  term  free-thinker,  is  be- 
come merely  a  softer  and  more  fashionable  nalne 
for  itifidel ;  for,  on  all  those  points  wherein  the 
sceptics  of  the  age  differ  from  Christians,  they 
will  be  found,  to  the  full,  as  dogmatical  as  the 
most  tenacious  of  their  adversaries  *°^  ~^  Such,  at 

106  The  only  exception  which  has  appeared  in  this  age  (if 
we  can  account  one  an  exception  who  has  done  so  much  to 


p.  n.]  DISSERTATIONS.  407 

least,  is  the  manner  of  those  who,  in  modern  Eu- 
rope, affect  to  be  considered  as  philosophical 
sceptics. 

§  10.  But,  to  return  to  the  consideration  of  the 
first  printed  editions,  from  which  it  may  be 
thought  I  have  digressed  too  far  :  what  has  been 
said  sufficiently  shows  that  they  are  not  entitled 
to  more  credit  than  is  due  to  the  manuscripts  from 
which    they    were    compiled.       Nobody   ascribes 

undermine  in  others  a  belief,  with  which  at  limes  he  seems 
himself  to  have  been  strongly  impressed)  is  that  eminent  but 
anomalous  genius,  Rousseau.  He  had  the  sensibility  to  feel 
strongly,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  the  force  of  the  internal 
evidence  of  our  religion,  resulting  from  the  character,  the 
life,  and  the  death,  of  its  Author,  the  purity  and  the  sublimity 
of  his  instructions  ;  he  had  the  sagacity  to  discern,  and  the 
candour  to  acknowledge,  that  the  methods  employed  by  infi- 
dels in  accounting  for  these  things  are  frivolous,  and,  to  every 
rational  inquirer,  unsatisfactory.  At  the  same  time,  through 
the  unhappy  influence  of  philosophical  prejudices,  insensible 
of  the  force  of  the  external  evidence  of  prophecy  and  mira- 
cles, he  did  not  scruple  to  treat  every  plea  of  this  kind  as 
absurd,  employing  against  the  same  religion,  even  the  poorest 
cavils  that  are  any  where  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  infidels. 
Nay,  for  this  purpose,  he  mustered  up  a  world  of  objections, 
without  ever  discovering  that  he  mistook  the  subject  of  dispute, 
and  confounded  the  doctrine  of  particular  sects  or  denomina- 
tions of  Christians,  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  The  articles 
against  which  his  artillery  is  generally  pointed,  are  the  com- 
ments of  later  ages,  and  not  the  pure  dictates  of  holy  writ. 
See  the  character  of  this  extraordinary  man  (whom  I  here  con- 
sider only  as  a  sceptic)  as  delineated  by  the  masterly  pen  of 
Dr.  Beattie.      Essay  on  Truth,    Part  III.  chap.  2. 


408  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

inspiration,  or  any  supernatural  direction,  to  the 
first  editors.  And  as  to  advantages  merely  natur- 
al, they  were  not  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
critics  of  after-times.  The  most  valuable  manu- 
scripts, far  from  being  then  generally  known, 
remained  scattered  throughout  the  world.  A  few 
might  fall  under  the  notice  of  one  curious  inquirer, 
another  few  under  that  of  another.  But  there 
had  not  been  an}^  number  of  them  yet  collated, 
and  consequently  their  various  readings  had  not 
been  collected  and  published.  Nay,  that  the  judg- 
ment of  those  editors,  concerning  the  antiquity 
and  correctness  of  the  manuscripts  which  they 
used,  cannot  be  implicitly  relied  on,  may  warrant- 
ably  be  concluded  from  this  circumstance,  that 
this  species  of  criticism  was  but  in  its  infancy, 
and  that  even  learned  men  had  not  then,  a,s  now, 
the  necessary  means  of  qualifying  themselves,  for 
judging  of  the  antiquity,  and  correctness,  of  man- 
uscripts. Besides,  those  publishers  themselves 
were  not  unanimous.  Nor  were  the  alterations 
made  by  those  of  them  who  were  posterior  in 
time,  always  for  the  better.  ''  I  ^m  amazed," 
says  Michaelis^%  very  justly,  "  when  I  hear  some 
"  vindicate  our  common  readings,  as  if  the  editors 
"  had  been  inspired  b}'^  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Is  it  possible,  then,  to  assign  a  satisfactory  rea- 
son for  the  determination  of  Bengelius,  not  to 
admit  any  reading  which  had  not  the  support  of 
some   former  printed    edition.'^       "  Ne ~^ syllabam 

^^"^  Introduc.  Lect.  sect.  34. 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  409 

"  quidem,  etiamsi  mille  MSS.  mille  critici  jube- 
"  rent,    antehac    [in   editionibus]    non   receptam, 
"  adducar  ut  recipiam^°^"    He  has  not  indeed  con- 
fined himself,  in  his  choice   of  readings,  to  any 
one  edition,  but  has   excluded  entirely  from  his 
text,  those  readings  which,  however  well  support- 
ed, no  preceding  editor  had  adopted.     This  rule 
which  he  laid  down  to  himself,  is  manifestly  inde- 
fensible, inasmuch  as  the  authority  of  the  printed 
editions  must  ultimately  rest  on  that  of  the  manu- 
scripts from  which   they  are  taken.     Whereas  it 
can   give  no  additional  value   to  the  manuscripts, 
that  some  of  the  first  publishers  have  thought  fit 
to  prefer  them,  perhaps  injudiciously,  to   others  ; 
or,  to  speak  more  properly,  have   thought  fit  to 
copy  them  as  the  best  they   had.     Their  merit 
depends    entirely  on   the    evidences  yve  have  of 
their   own   antiquity,   accuracy,    &c.      For   none, 
surely,  will  be  hardy  enough  to   say,  that  errors, 
by  being  printed,  will  be  converted  into  truths. 

§  11.  The  only  cause  which  I  can  assign,  for 
the  resolution  taken  by  Bengelius,  though  of  no 
weight  in  the  scales  of  criticism  and  philosophy, 
may  merit  some  regard,  viewed  in  a  prudential 
and  political  light.  The  printed  copies  are  in 
every  bodies'  hands  ;  the  manuscripts  are  known 
to  very  few :  and  though  the  easy  multiplication 
of  the  copies,  by  the  press,  will  not  be  considered, 
by  any  person  who  reflects,  as  adding  any  authori- 
ty  to   the    manuscripts    from   which   they   were 

106  Prodromus. 


410  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

taken  ;  it  has,  nevertheless,  the  same  effect  on  the 
generality  of  mankind,  as  if  it  did.  Custom,  the 
duration,  and  the  extent,  of  their  reception,  are 
powerful  supports,  with  the  majority  of  readers. 
The  reason,  therefore,  Avhich  has  influenced  that 
learned  editor  is,  at  bottom,  I  suppose,  the  same 
that  influenced  Jerom,  when  revising  the  old  Lat- 
in version,  not  to  correct  every  thing  which  he 
was  sensible  stood  in  need  of  correction,  that  he 
might  not,  by  the  number  and  boldness  of  his 
alterations,  scandalize  the  people.  But  this  is  a 
motive  of  a  kind  totally  different  from  those  which 
arise  from  critical  considerations,  and  ought  not  to 
be  confounded  with  them. 

§  12.  I  DO  not  mean  to  say,  that  this  is  a  motive 
to  which  no  regard  should  be  shown.  There  are 
two  cases  in  which,  in  my  opinion,  it  ought  to  de- 
termine the  preference  ;  first,  when  the  arguments 
in  favour  of  one  reading,  appear  exactly  balanced  by 
those  in  favour  of  another  ;  secondly,  when  the 
difference  in  reading,  cannot  be  said  to  affect  either 
the  sense,  or  the  perspicuity,  of  the  sentence.  In 
the  former  case,  when  no  better  rule  of  decision  can 
be  discovered,  it  is  but  reasonable,  that  custom 
should  be  allowed  to  decide.  In  the  latter,  as  we 
ought  to  avoid,  especially  in  a  version,  introducing 
alterations  of  no  significance,  it  might  be  justly  ac- 
counted trifling,  to  take  notice  of  such  differences. 
In  other  cases,  we  ought  to  be  determineTl  by  the 
rules  of  criticism  ;  that  is,  in  other  words,  by  the 
evidence  impartially  examined.      As  to  which,  I 


,..  11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  411 

shall  only  add,  that  though  much  regard  is  due  to 
the  number  of  manuscripts,  editions,  versions,  &c. 
yet,  in  ascertaining  the  preference,  we  ought  not  to 
be  determined  solely  by  the  circumstance  of  num- 
ber. The  testimony  of  a  few  credible  witnesses, 
outweighs  that  of  many  who  are  of  doubtful  char- 
acter. Besides,  there  are  generally  internal  marks 
of  credibility  or  incredibility,  in  the  thing  testified, 
which  ought  always  to  have  some  influence  on  the 
decision. 

§  13.  At  the  same  time,  I  cannot  help  disap- 
proving the  admission  of  any  correction  (where 
the  expression,  as  it  stands  in  the  text,  is  not 
downright  nonsense)  merely  on  conjecture :  for, 
were  such  a  method  of  correcting  to  be  generally 
adopted,  no  bounds  could  be  set  to  the  freedom 
which  would  be  used  with  sacred  writ.  We 
should  very  soon  see  it  a  perfect  Babel  in  lan- 
guage, as  various  in  its  style,  in  different  editions, 
as  are  the  dialects  of  our  different  sects  and  parties. 
This  is  an  extreme  which,  if  it  should  prevail, 
would  be  of  much  more  pernicious  consequence 
than  the  other  extreme,  of  adhering  implicitly  and 
inflexibly,  with  or  without  reason,  to  whatever  we 
find  in  the  common  edition.  We  know  the  worst 
of  this  error  already  ;  and  we  can  say,  with  assur- 
ance, that  though  the  common  editions  are  not 
perfect,  there  is  no  mistake  in  them  of  such  a  na- 
ture, as  materially  to  aflect,  either  the  doctrines 
to  be  believed,  or  the  duties  to  be  practised,  by  a 
Christian.  The  worst  consequences  which  the 
blunders  of  transcribers  have  occasioned,  are  their 


412  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xn. 

hurting  sometimes  the  perspicuity,  sometimes  the 
credibility,  of  holy  writ,  affording  a  handle  to  the 
objections  of  infidels,  and  thereby  weakening  the 
evidences  of  religion.  But,  as  to  the  extreme  of 
correcting  on  mere  conjecture,  its  tendency  is  mani- 
festly to  throw  every  thing  loose,  and  to  leave  all 
at  the  mercy  of  system-builders,  and  framers  of 
hypotheses :  for  who  shall  give  law  to  the  licen- 
tiousness of  guessing  ? 

It  is  not  enough  to  answer,  that  the  classics 
have  sometimes  been  corrected  on  conjecture. 
The  cases  are  not  parallel.  A  freedom  may  be 
taken  with  the  latter  with  approbation,  which  can- 
not, with  propriety,  be  taken  with  the  former  ^°^. 


109  Part  I,  ^  2i_  Since  these  Dissertations  were  written,  I 
have  seen  Dr.  Geddes'  Prospectus,  wherein,  among  many 
things  which  I  entirely  approve,  I  observed  the  following  words 
(p.  55.)  which  appear  to  stand  in  direct  contradiction  to-  the 
opinion  given  above  :  "  When  the  corruptions  of  the  text  can- 
"  not  be  removed,  either  by  the  collation  of  manuscripts,  or 
"  the  aid  of  versions,  internal  analogy,  or  external  testimony, 
"  the  last  resource  is  conjectural  criticism." ,  In  opposition  to 
this  doctrine,  he  produces  a  popular  objection,  which  he  ex- 
amines and  answers.  And,  in  this  answer,  he  goes  still  further, 
affirming  that  there  are  cases  in  which  the  text  may  be  re- 
stored by  mere  critical  conjecture.  I  have  attentively  consider- 
ed his  answer,  and  am  led  by  it  to  regret  that,  through  the 
imperfection  of  all  languages,  ancient  and  modern,  it  often 
happens  that  writers  agree  in  sentiments  who  differ  in  words, 
and  agree  in  words  who  differ  in  sentiments.  Though  that  au- 
thor  and    I    have,    on   this    head,    expressed    ourselves    very 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  413 

Houbigant,  though  a  critic  of  eminence  in  Oriental 
literature,  and  a  good  translator,  has,  in  my  judg- 


differently,  I  am  apt  to  conclude,  from  the  explanation  he  has 
given,  the  instances  he  has  produced,  and  the  canons  he  has 
laid  down,  that  the  difference  between  us  is  mostly,  if  not  en- 
tirely, verbal.  It  lies  chiefly  in  the  sense  affixed  to  the  word 
conjecture.  He  has  applied  it  to  cases  to  which  I  should  not 
think  it  applicable.  When  any  passage  contains  in  itself  such 
indications,  as  are  always  accounted  sufficient  evidence  of  a 
particular  alteration  it  has  undergone,  I  never  call  the  discov- 
ery of  that  alteration  conjecture. 

Now  this  is  precisely  the  case  in  some  of  the  instances  given 
by  Dr.  Geddes.  When,  in  one  edition  of  the  English  Bible, 
we  read  to  ad  dafftiction  to  my  bonds,  how  do  we  reason  from 
it  ?  We  perceive  at  once  that  ad  is  not  English,  neither  is 
daffliction.  Hence  we  conclude,  with  perfect  assurance,  that 
this  is  not  the  true  reading,  or  the  reading  intended  by  the 
translators.  A  very  Uttle  attention  shows  us  that  if,  without  al- 
tering the  order  of  the  letters,  we  take  the  d  from  the  begin- 
ning of  daffliction,  and  annex  it  to  ad  immediately  preceding 
(which  is  the  smallest  alteration  possible,  as  not  a  single  letter 
intervenes)  the  expression  is  just  in  itself,  and  the  meaning  is 
suited  to  the  context.  As  it  stands,  it  is  nonsense.  No  evi- 
dence can  be  more  convincing.  We  may  venture  to  say,  that 
if  there  were  fifty  other  editions  of  the  English  Bible  at  hand, 
no  reasonable  person  would  think  of  consulting  any  of  them, 
for  further  satisfaction.  Now  I  submit  it  to  this  critic  himself, 
whether  to  say  of  any  thing,  "  It  is  a  matter  of  the  utmost  cer- 
"  tainty,"  and  to  say,  "  It  is  a  mere  conjecture,"  be  not  con- 
sidered as  rather  opposite  in  signification  than  coincident. 
There  are  some  other  of  the  learned  Gentleman's  examples, 
in  which  there  is  hardly  more  scope  for  conjecture  than  in  that 
now  examined :  such  as  that  wherein  terited  (which  is  no 
word)  is  used  for  retired  (a  word  remarkably  similar,)  and 
that  wherein  well  (which  in  that  place  has  no  meaning)  is  used 
VOL.  lu  52 


4r4  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

ment,  taken  most  unjustifiable  liberties  in  his  con- 
jectural emendations,  and  has  been  but  too  much 


for  dwell.  In  all  such  cases  we  are  determined,  by  the  internal 
evidence  resulting  from  the  similarity  of  the  letters,  from  the 
scope  of  the  place,  and  from  the  construction  of  the  words. 
In  a  few  of  the  cases  put,  there  is,  I  own,  something  of 
conjecture  ;  but  the  correction  is  not  merely  conjectural.  Of 
this  kind  is  that,  versed  in  the  politer  of  learning.,  where  parts 
or  branches,  or  some  word  of  like  signification,  must  be  sup- 
plied. If  it  be  asked,  What  then  ought  to  be  denominated 
a  matter  of  mere  conjecture  ?  I  answer.  The  reader  will 
find  an  example  of  this  in  §  14.  to  which  I  refer  him.  We 
have  but  too  many  examples  in  some  late  critical  productions 
of  great  name,  wherein  the  authors,  without  any  warrant 
from  manuscripts  or  versions,  and  without  any  reason  from  the 
scope  of  the  place,  or  the  import  of  the  passage,  are  per- 
petually proposing  emendations  on  the  text,  and  that  by 
transposing,  changing,  adding,  or  dismissing,  not  only  words  but 
clauses,  when  the  passage  does  not,  as  it  stands,  perfectly  suit 
their  notions. 

That  the  text  has  sometimes  been  interpolated,  and  other- 
wise corrupted  by  transcribers  and  interpreters,  cannot  be 
questioned.  Of  this  it  is  doubtless  the  critic's  business  to  clear 
it  as  much  as  possible.  But  we  ought  ever  to  remember  that 
the  greater  part  of  those  corruptions  were  originally  no  other 
than  conjectural  corrections.  And  if  we  go  to  work  in  the 
same  way,  with  such  freedom  of  guessing  as  has-  sometimes 
been  employed,  it  is  ten  to  one  that  we  ourselves  corrupt  the 
text  instead  of  mending  it,  and  that  we  serve  only  to  furnish 
more  work  for  future  critics.  I  observe  in  the  Monthly  Re- 
view [August  1786]  of  Reed's  late  edition  of  Shakespeare,  in  a 
note  on  the  expression  knowledge  illinhabited,  which  has  given 
great  plague  to  the  critics,  the  following  remark,  "  At  all 
"  events  we  beg  leave  to  enter  our  protest  against  putting  in- 
"  hibit  into  the  text.     How  many  plausible  conjectures,  which 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  415 

followed  by  critics,  commentators,  or  paraphrasts, 
amongst  ourselves.  I  am  far  from  thinking  that, 
in  some  of  his  guesses,  he  may  not  be  right ;  it 
is,  however,  much  more  probable  that,  in  the 
greater  part  of  them,  he  is  wrong. 

A  mere  conjecture  may  be  mentioned  in  a  note ; 
but  if,  without  the  authority  of  copies,  translations, 
or  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers,  it  may  be  admit- 
ted into  the  text,  there  is  an  end  of  all  reliance 
on  the  Scriptures  as  the  dictates  of  the  divine 
Spirit.  Manuscripts,  ancient  translations,  the 
readings  of  the  most  early  commentators,  are,  like 
the  witnesses  in^a  judicial  process,  direct  evidence 
in  this  matter.  The  reasonings  of  conjecturers 
are  but  like  the  speeches  of  the  pleaders.  To 
receive,  on  the  credit  of  a  sagacious  conjecture,  a 
reading  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  construc- 
tion, and  quite  unsupported  by  positive  eyidence, 
appears  not  less  incongruous,  than  it  would  be, 
in  a  trial,  to  return  a  verdict,  founded  on  the  plead- 


"  their  ill-advised  predecessors,"  former  publishers,  "  had  ad- 
"  vanced  into  the  body  of  the  page,  have  the  late  editors,  in 
"  consequence  of  their  more  extensive  researches,  been  oblig- 
"  ed  to  degrade  to  their  proper  place,  the  margin  ?  Can  they 
"  then  be  too  scrupulous  in  admitting  their  own  corrections  ?" 
Upon  the  whole,  from  the  way  wherein  Dr.  Geddes  qualifies 
his  sentiments,  1  am  convinced,  that  the  difference  between  him 
and  me  on  this  article  is  more  in  the  words  than  in  the  thought. 
His  verdict  in  regard  to  every  one  of  the  particular  cases,  sup- 
posed by  him,  is  unexceptionable  :  but  his  manner  of  express- 
ing the  general  position  is,  in  my  opinion,  unguarded,  and  conse- 
quently may  mislead. 


416  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xn. 

ing  of  a  plausible  speaker,  not  only  without  proof, 
but  in  direct  opposition  to  it.  For,  let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  the  copies,  ancient  versions,  and  quo- 
tations, which  are  conformable  to  the  common 
reading,  are  positive  evidence  in  its  favour,  and 
therefore  against  the  conjecture.  And  even,  if 
the  readings  of  the  passage  be  various,  there  is, 
though  less,  still  some  weight  in  their  evidence 
against  a  reading  merely  conjectural,  and  conse- 
quently, destitute  of  external  support,  and  different 
from  them  all.  It  must,  however,  be  acknowledg- 
ed, that  the  variety  itself,  if  it  affect  some  of  the 
oldest  manuscripts  and  translations,  is  a  presump- 
tion that  the  place  has  been  early  corrupted  in 
transcribing. 

§  14.  I  CANNOT  avoid,  here,  taking  notice  of  a 
correction,  merely   conjectural,   proposed  by  the 
late  Dr.  Kennicott,  a  man  to  whose  pious  and  use- 
ful labours,  the  learned  in   general,  and  the  stu- 
dents of  the  divine  oracles  in  particular,  are  under 
the  greatest  obligations.     The  correction  he  pro- 
poses "«,  is  on  these  words,  Vnon  ^'C'r  HX?  nisp 
Crtif "}  ^^il  jri^l-    E,  T.     And  he  made  his  grave 
"with  the  wicked,  and  tvith  the  rich  in  his  death  ^^^. 
This  ingenious    critic  supposes,  that    the   words 
nnp  and  Vr\D2  have,  by  some  means   or  other, 
changed  places.     He  would  have  them,  therefore, 
transposed,  or  rather  restored,  each  to  its  proper 
place,  in  consequence  of  which,  the  rniport  will 

"0  Dks.  II.  chap.  IV.  2d  period.  "^  Isa.  liii.  9. 


p.  „.]  DISSERTATIONS.  417 

be  (I  give  it  in  his  own  words,)  And  he  was  taken 
up  ivith  wicked  men  in  his  death;  and  ivith  a 
rich  man  was  his  sepulchre.  He  adds :  "  Since 
"  the  preceding  parts  of  the  prophecy  speak  so 
«  indisputably  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the 
"  Messiah,  these  words  seem  evidently  meant,  as 
"  descriptive  of  the  Messiah's  being  put  to  death 
"  in  company  with  wicked  men,  and  making  his 
«  grave,  or  sepulchre  (not  with  rich  men,  but)  with 
"  one  rich  man." 

Now,  let  it  be  observed,  that  of  all  the  vast  num- 
ber of  manuscripts  which  that  gentleman  had  col- 
lated, not  one  was  found  to  favour  this  arrange- 
ment; that  neither  the  Septuagint,  nor  any  other 
old  translation,  is   conformable  to  it ;  that  no  an- 
cient author,  known  to  us,  in  any  language,  quotes 
the  words,  so  arranged,  either  from  the  origmal, 
or  from   anv  version ;    and,  consequently,  that  we 
cannot  consider  the  conjecture  otherwise,  than  as 
opposed  by  such  a  cloud  of  witnesses  as,  in  m- 
quiries    of  this  kind,  must  be  accounted  strong 
positive  evidence.      Had  the  words,  as  they  are 
read  in   Scripture,  been  ungrammatical,  so  as  to 
yield    no    meaning  that   we    could   discover,  and 
had  the  transposition  of  the  two  words  added  both 
sense  and  grammar  to  the  sentence,  and  that  in 
perfect  consistency  with  the  scope  of  the  context, 
I  should  have  readily  admitted,  that  the  criticism 
stood  on  a  firmer  foundation  than  mere  conjecture, 
and   that    the    external   proofs,   from    testimony, 
might    be   counterbalanced   by  the   intrinsic  evi- 
dence arising  from  the  subject.     But  this  is  not 


418    .  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii, 

pretended  here.  To  be  associated  with  the  rich 
in  death,  is  equally  grammatical,  and  equally  in- 
telligible, as  to  be  associated  with  the  wicked ;  the 
like  may  be  said  in  regard  to  burial.  Where,  then, 
is  the  occasion  for  a  change  ?  The  only  answer 
that  can  be  given,  is  certainly  a  very  bad  one. 
The  occasion  is,  that  the  words  may  be  adjusted 
to  an  event  which,  in  our  opinion,  is  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecy. 

But,  if  such  liberties  may  be  taken  with  the 
Prophets,  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  obtaining, 
from  them,  proofs  in  support  of  any  interpretation. 
The  learned  Doctor  takes  notice,  that  the  preced- 
ing part  of  this  chapter  speaks  indisputably  of  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  the  Messiah.  I  am  as 
much  convinced  as  any  man,  that  the  subject  of 
the  prophecy  is  as  he  represents  it ;  but,  to  say 
that  it  is  indisputably  so,  seems  to  insinuate  that 
it  is  universally  admitted.  Now  this  is  far  from 
being  the  fact.  It  is  disputed  by  the  whole  Jew- 
ish nation,  and  is  allowed  by  some  Christian  ex- 
positors, to  be  only,  in  a  secondary  sense,  pro- 
phetical of  Christ.  Suppose  a  Christian,  after  the 
passage  shall  have  been,  in  the  Christian  Bibles, 
new  modelled  in  the  way  proposed,  to  urge  it  on  a 
Jew,  as  an  argument  from  prophecy,  that  Jesus, 
the  son  of  Mary,  is  the  person  in  whom  the  pre- 
diction was  fulfilled,  and  therefore  the  Messiah ; 
inasmuch  as  the  words  exactly  represent  what,  in 
so  signal  a  manner,  happened  to  him. — He-suffered 
with  malefactors,  and  was  buried  in  a  rich  man's 
sepulchre ;  would  not  the  other  have  reason  to 
retort,  '  Ye  Christians  have  a  wonderful  dexterity 


p.  II.]  DISSERTATIONS.  419 

*  in  managing  the  argument  from  prophecy ;  ye, 

*  first,  by  changing  and  transposing  the  Prophet's 

*  words,  accommodating  them  to  your  purpose, 
'  make  him  say,  what  we ,  have  direct  evidence 
'  that  he  never  said ;  and  then  ye  have  the  confi- 

*  dence  to  argue,  this  must  infallibly  be  the  event 

*  intended  by  the  Prophet,  it  so  exactly  answers 

*  the  description.    Ye  yourselves  make  the  prophe- 
'cy  resemble  the  event  which  ye  would  have  to» 
'  be  predicted  by  it,  and  then  ye  reason,  from  the 

*  resemblance,  that  this  is  the  completion  of  the 

*  prophecy.' 

.  Let  us  judge  equitably  of  men  of  all  denomina- 
tions. Should  we  discover  that  the  Masorets  had 
made  so  free  with  the  declaration  of  any  Prophet, 
in  order  to  adapt  it  to  what  they  take  to  be  the 
accomplishment ;  would  we  hesitate  a  moment  to 
call  the  words,  so  metamorphosed,  a  corruption  of 
the  sacred  text?  In  an  enlightened  age,  to  recur 
to  such  expedients,  will  be  always  found  to  hurt 
true  religion,  instead  of  promoting  it.  The  detec- 
tion of  them,  in  a  few  instances,  brings  a  suspicion 
on  the  cause  they  were  intended  to  serve,  and 
would  go  far  to  discredit  the  argument  from 
prophecy  altogether.  I  cannot  conclude  this  re- 
mark, without  adding,  that  this  is  almost  the  only 
instance  wherein  I  differ  in  critical  sentiments 
from  that  excellent  author ;  from  whose  labours,  I 
acknowledge  with  gratitude,  I  have  reaped  much 
pleasure  and  instruction. 

§  15.  To  conclude  what  relates  to  various  read- 
ings ;  those  variations,  which  do  not  affect  either 


420  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

the  sense  or  the  connection,  I  take  no  notice  of ; 
because  the  much  greater  part  of  them  would  oc- 
casion no  difference  in  translating;  and  even  of 
the  few  of  these  which  might  admit  some  differ- 
ence,  the   difference   is    more  in   words   than  in 
meaning.     Again,  such  variations  as  even  alter  the 
sense,  but  are  not  tolerably  supported,  by  either 
external,  or  internal,  evidence,  especially  when  the 
common  reading  has  nothing  in  it  apparently  ir- 
rational, or  unsuitable  to  the  context,  I  have  not 
judged    necessary   to    mention.      Those,   on   the 
contrary,  which  not  only,  in  some  degree,  affect 
the  sense,  but,  from  their  own  intrinsic  evidence, 
or  from  the  respectable   support  of  manuscripts 
and  versions,  have  divided  the  critics  about  their 
authenticity,  I  have  taken  care  to  specify.     When 
the  evidence,  in    their    favour,  appeared  to   me 
clearly  to  preponderate,  I    have    admitted  them 
into  the  text,  and  assigned  my  reason  in  the  notes. 
Wherever  the  matter  seemed  dubious,  I  have  pre- 
ferred the  common  reading,  and  suggested,  in  the 
notes,  what  may   be   advanced   in   favour  of  the 
other.     When  the  difference  lay  in  the  rejection 
of  a  clause  commonly  received,  though  the  proba- 
bility were  against  its  admission,  yet,  if  the  sen- 
tence or  clause  were  remarkable,  and  if  it  neither 
conveyed  a   sentiment  unsuitable  to  the  general 
scope,  nor  brought  obscurity  on  the  context,  I 
have  judged  it  better  to  retain  it,  than  to  shock 
many  readers  by  the  dismission  of  what  they  have 
been  accustomed  to  read  in  their  Bible.     At  the 
same  time,  to  distinguish  such  clauses,  as  of  doubt- 


r.  m.]  DISSERTATIONS.  421 

ful  authority,  I  inclose  them  in  crotchets.  Of  this 
the  doxology,  as  it  is  called,  in  the  Lord's  prayer, 
is  an  example.  In  other  cases,  I  have  not  scru- 
pled to  omit  what  did  not  appear  sufficiently  sup- 
ported. 


PART  III. 


TME    DIALECT    EMPLOYED. 

As  to  what  concerns  the  language  of  this  ver- 
sion, I  have  not  much  to  add  to  the  explana- 
.  tions  I  have  given  of  my  sentiments  on  this  article, 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  preceding  Dissertation,  and 
the  first  part  of  the  present.  When  the  common 
translation  was  made,  and  (which  is  still  earlier) 
when  the  English  liturgy  was  composed,  the  reign- 
ing dialect  was  not  entirely  the  same  with  that 
which  prevails  at  present.  Now,  as  the  dialect 
which  then  obtained  does,  very  rarely,  even  to  the 
readers  of  this  age,  either  injure  the  sense,  or  af- 
fect the  perspicuity  ;  I  have  judged  it  proper,  in  a 
great  measure,  to  retain  it.  The  differences  are 
V,  neither  great,  nor  numerous.  The  third  person 
singular  of  the  present  of  the  verb,  terminates  in 
the  syllable  eth,  in  the  old  dialect,  not  the  letter  s, 
as  in  that  now  current.  The  participles  are  very 
rarely  contracted ;  nor  is  there  ever  any  elision  of 
VOL.  II.  53 


422  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

the  vowels.  Indeed,  these  elisions,  though  not  en- 
tirely laid  aside,  are  becoming  much  less  frequent 
now,  than  they  were  about  the  beginning  of  the 
last  century.  The  difference  is,  in  itself,  incon- 
siderable :  yet,  as  all  ranks  and  denominations  of 
Christians  are,  from  the  use  of,  either  the  Bible,  or 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  or  both,  habituated 
to  this  dialect ;  and  as  it  has  contracted  a  dignity, 
favourable  to  seriousness,  from  its  appropriation  to 
sacred  purposes  ;  it  is,  I  think,  in  a  version  of  any 
part  of  holy  writ,  entitled  to  be  preferred  to  the 
modern  dialect. 

§  2.  The  gayer  part  of  mankind  will,  doubtless, 
think  that  there  is  more  vivacity  in  our  common 
speech ;  as  by  retrenching  a  few  unnecessary  ' 
vowels,  the  expression  is  shortened,  and  the 
sentiment  conveyed  with  greater  quickness.  But 
vivacity  is  not  the  character  of  the  language  of  the 
sacred  penmen.  Gravity  here,  or  even  solemnity, 
if  not  carried  to  excess,  is  much  more  suitable.  I  bid 
"  this  man,"  says  the  centurion,  in  the  anonymous 
translation  "^,  "  Go,  and  he's  gone ;  another.  Come, 
"  and  he's  here  ;  and  to  my  servant,  Do  this,  and 
"  it  is  done."  And  in  the  parallel  place  in  Luke  "^, 
"  Lord,  don't  give  yourself  the  trouble  of  coming ; 
"  I  don't  deserve  you  should  honour  my  house 
"  with  your  presence."  There  are,  I  believe,  not 
a  few  who  would  prefer  this  manner  to  that  of  the 
common  version,  as  being  much  smarter,  as  well 

"2  Matth.  Tiii.  9.  "»  Luke,  vii.  6- 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  423 

as  more  genteel.  Surely,  if  that  interpreter  had 
given  the  smallest  attention  to  uniformity,  he 
would  never  have  rendered  afii^v  afii^v  Xsya  'v^iv, 
as  he  sometimes  does,  by  the  antiquated  phrase, 
Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you.  It.would  have  been 
but  of  a  piece  with  many  passages  of  his  version, 
to  employ  the  more  modish,  and  more  gentle- 
manlike asseveration,  "  Upon  my  honour."  With 
those  who  can  relish  things  sacred  in  this 
dress,  or  rather  disguise,  I  should  think  it  in 
vain  to  dispute. 

§  3.  Another  criterion  of  that  solemn  dialect, 
is  the  recourse,  Vhen  an  individual  is  addressed, 
to  the^  singular  number  of  the  second  personal 
pronoun  thou  and  thee,  and,  consequently,  to  the 
second  person  singular  of  the  verb,  which  being, 
in  common  language,  supplied  by  the  plural  is,  in 
a  manner,  obsolete.  This  also  is,  from  scriptural 
use,  and  the  constant  use  of  it  in  worship,  in  the 
British  dominions,  both  by  those  of  the  establish- 
ment, and  by  dissenters,  universally  intelligible, 
and  now  considered  as  the  proper  dialect  of  relig- 
ion. Immediately  after  the  Reformation,  the  like 
mode,  in  using  the  pronoun,  was  adopted  by  all 
Protestant  translators  into  French,  Italian,  and 
German,  as  well  as  into  English.  But  as,  in  Ro- 
man Catholic  countries,  those  translations  were  of 
no  authority  ;  and  as  the  Scriptures  are  read  in 
their  churches,  and  their  devotions  and  ceremo- 
nies performed,  in  a  language  not  understood  by 
the  people ;  the  customs  of  dissenters,  as  all  Prot- 
estants are  in  those  countries,  could  not  introduce, 


424  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

into  the  language  of  religion,  so  great  a  singulari- 
ty of  idiom.  And  as  there  was  nothing  to  recom- 
mend this  manner  to  the  people,  whilst  there 
were  several  things  to  prejudice  them  against  it, 
we  do  not  find  that  it  has  been  employed  by  any 
late  Popish  translators  into  French. 

What  tended  to  prejudice  them  against  it,  is, 
first,  the  general  disuse  of  it  in  the  ordinary  inter- 
course of  men ;  and,  secondly,  the  consideration 
that  the  few  exceptions  from  this  disuse,  in  com- 
mon life,  instead  of  showing  respect  or  reverence, 
suggests  always  either  pity  or  contempt ;  no  per- 
son being  ever  addressed  in  this  way  but  one 
greatly  inferior,  or  a  child.  This  being  the  case, 
and  they  not  having,  like  us,  a  solemn,  to  counter- 
balance the  familiar,  use  ;  the  practice  of  Protest- 
ants w^ould  rather  increase,  than  diminish,  their 
dislike  of  it.  For  these  reasons,  the  use  of  the 
singular  pronoun,  in  adoration,  has  the  same  effect, 
nearly,  on  them,  which  the  contrary  use  of  the 
plural  has  on  us.  To  a  French  Catholic,  Tu  es 
notre  Dieu,  et  notis  te  benirons,  and  to  an  English 
Protestant,  You  are  our  God,  and  we  ivill  bless 
you,  equally  betray  an  indecent  familiarity  "^  By 
reason  of  this  difference  in  the  prevailing  usages, 

^^*  The  way  in  which  Saci,  who  appears  to  have  been  a 
pious  worthy  man,  translates  from  the  Vulgate  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  rendered  literally  from  French  into  English,  is  a 
striking  example  of  the  difference  of  manner  :  "  Our  Father 
"  who  are  in  heaven,  let  your  name  be  sanctifie"d,  let  your 
"  reign  arrive,  let  your  will  be  done,"  &c.       Yet  the   earlier 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  425 

it  must  be  acknowledged,  that  French  Romanists 
have  a  plausible  pretext  for  using  the  plural.  We 
have,  however,  a  real  advantage  in  pur  manner, 
especially  in  worship.  Theirs,  it  is  true,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  prevalent  use,  has  nothing  in  it 
disrespectful  or  indecent ;  but  this  is  merely  a 
negative  commendation  ;  ours,  on  account  of  the 
peculiarity  of  its  appropriation  in  religious  sub- 
jects, is  eminently  serious  and  affecting.  It  has, 
besides,  more  precision.  In  worship,  it  is  a  more 
explicit  declaration  of  the  unity  of  the  Godhead ; 
and  even  ivhen,  in  holy  writ,  addressed  to  a  crea- 
ture, it  serves  to  remove  at  least  one  ambiguous 
circumstance,  consequent  on  modern  use,  which 
does  not  rightly  distinguish  what  is  said  to  one, 
from  what  is  said  to  many.     And  though  the  scope 

,  Popish  translators  chose  to  use  the  singular  number  as  well 
as  the  reformed.  It  had  been  the  universal  practice  of  the 
ancients,  Greeks,  Romans,  and  Orientals.  It  was  used  in  the 
English  translation  of  Rheims,  though  composed  by  Papists  in 
opposition  to  the  Protestant  version  then  commonly  received. 
In  the  later  versions  of  French  Protestants,  this  use  of  the 
singular  number  of  the  second  person  is  given  up  entirely,  ex- 
cept in  addresses  to  God  ;  the  formularies  read  in  their  meet- 
ings, having,  in  this  particular,  established  among  them  a  dif- 
ferent usage.  Beausohre  and  Lenfant  [see  Preface  Generale 
sur  le  JVouveaii  Testament]  strenuously  maintain  the  propriety 
of  their  not  using  the  singular  of  the  second  personal  pronoun 
except  in  worship.  I  admit  their  arguments  to  be  conclusive 
with  respect  to  French  ;  but,  for  the  reasons  above  mentioned, 
they  are  inconclusive  applied  to  English.  Yet  in  this  some 
English  translators  have  followed  the  French  manner,  but  not 
uniformly. 


426  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

of  the  place  often  shows  the  distinction,  it  does 
not  always. 

§  4.  A  FEW  other  particulars  of  the  ancient  dia- 
lect I  have  also  retained,  especially  in  those  in- 
stances wherein,  without  hurting  perspicuity,  they 
appeared  to  give  greater  precision :  but  those, 
on  the  contrary,  which  might,  in  some  instances, 
darken  the  expression,  or  render  it  equivocal,  I 
have  rejected  altogether.  For  I  consider  no 
quality  of  elocution  as  more  essential  than  per- 
spicuity, and  nothing  more  conducive  to  this,  than 
as  much  uniformity  and  precision  in  the  applica- 
tion of  words,  as  the  language  will  admit.  For 
this  reason,  though  I  have  retained  ivhether  for 
which  of  two,  whoso  for  whoever,  and  a  few 
others,  little  used  at  present ;  I  have  not  em- 
ployed which.,  as  in  the  old  dialect,  for  who,  or 
whom,  his  or  her  for  its,  that  for  that  which,  or 
what.  For  these,  though  they  do  not  often  oc<;a- 
sion  ambiguity,  sometimes  occasion  it :  and  there 
is  no  way  of  preventing  doubt  in  every  case,  but 
by  observing  uniformity,  when  practicable,  in  all 
cases.  In  such  an  expression,  for  example,  as 
that  of  the  Apostle  Peter  "^  Being  horn  ngciin  by 
the  word  of  God.,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for 
ever ;  if  the  relative  which  were  applied,  indis- 
criminately, to  persons  or  to  things,  it  might  be 
questioned,  whether  what  is  affirmed,  be  affirmed 
of  the  word  of  God,  or  of  God  himself^    But  if, 

"5  1  Pet.  i.  23. 


r.  iii.J  DISSERTATIONS.  427 

according  to  present  use,  it  be  confined  to  things, 
there  is  no  question  at  all. 

§  5.  Another  point,  in  which  the  scriptural 
differs  from  the  modern  dialect,  is  in  the  manner 
sometimes  used  in  expressing  the  future.  In  all 
predictions,  prophecies,  or  authoritative  declara- 
tions, the  auxiliary  shall  is  used,  where,  in  com- 
mon language,  it  would  now  be  ivill.  This 
method,  as  adding  weight  to  what  is  said,  I  always 
adopt,  unless  when  it  is  liable  to  be  equivocally 
interpreted,  and  seems  to  represent  moral  agents 
as  acting  through  necessity,  or  by  compulsion. 
In  the  graver  sorts  of  poetry,  the  same  use  is 
made  of  the  auxiliary  shall.  As  to  the  preposi- 
tions, I  observed,  in  the  preceding  Dissertation  "^ 
that  the  present  use  gives  them  more  precision, 
and  so  occasions  fewer  ambiguities,  than  the  use 
which  prevailed  formerly.  I  have,  therefore,  giv- 
en it  the  preference.  There  is  one  case,  however, 
wherein  I  always  observe  the  old  method.  Called 
of  God,  chosen  of  God,  and  other  the  like  phras- 
es, are,  for  an  obvious  reason,  more  agreeable  to 
Christian  ears,  than  if  we  were  to  prefix  to  the 
name  of  God  the  preposition  by.  The  pronouns 
mine  and  thine,  I  have  also  sometimes,  after  the 
ancient  manner,  in  order  to  avoid  a  disagreeable 
hiatus,  substituted  for  my  and  thy. 

§  6.  To  the  foregoing  remarks  on  the  subject 
of  dialect,   I   shall   subjoin   a  few  things  on  the 

»w  Part  II. 


428  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

manner  of  rendering  proper  names.  Upon  the 
revival  of  letters  in  the  West,  Pagnin  first,  and 
after  him  some  other  translators,  through  an  affec- 
tation of  accuracy  in  things  of  no  moment,  so 
justly  censured  by  Jerom,  seem  to  have  consider- 
ed it  as  a  vast  improvement,  to  convey,  as  nearly 
as  possible,  in  the  letters  of  another  language,  the 
very  sounds  of  the  Hebrew  and  Syriac  names 
which  occur  in  Scripture.  Hence  the  names  of 
some  of  the  most  eminent  personages  in  the  Old 
Testament,  were,  by  this  new  dialect,  so  much 
metamorphosed,  that  those  who  were  accustomed 
to  the  ancient  translation,  could  not,  at  first  hear- 
ing, recognize  the  persons  with  whose  history 
they  had  been  long  acquainted.  The  Heva  of  the 
Vulgate  was  transformed  into  Chauva,  the  Isaia 
into  Jesahiahii,  the  Jeremia  into  Irmeiahu,  the 
Ezechiel  into  JechezecheU  and  similar  changes 
were  made  on  many  others.  In  this  Pagnin  soon 
had,  if  not  followers,  at  least  imitators.  The 
trifling  innovations  made  by  him,  after  his  manner, 
have  served  as  an  example  to  others  to  innovate 
also  after  theirs.  Junius  and  Tremellius,  though 
they  say,  with  Pagnin,  Chauva,  do  not  adopt  his 
Jesahiahu,  Inneiahu,  and  Jechezechel ;  but  they 
give  us  what  is  no  better  of  their  own,  Jischahja, 
Jirmeja,  and  Jechezekel.  Munster's  deviations  are 
less  considerable,  and  Castalio  went  no  further 
(except  in  transforming  the  name  of  God  into 
Javo,)  than  to  give  a  Latin  termination  to  the 
names  formerly  used,  that  he  might  thereby  ren- 
der them  declinable. 


p.  „i.]  DISSERTATIONS.  429 

§  7.  A  DEVIATION  purely  of  this  last  kind,  as 
it  served  to  prevent  ambiguities,  otherwise  inev- 
itable, in  the  Latin,  where  there  was  no  ambiguity 
in  the  original,  did,  in  my  opinion,  admit  a  good 
apology.  For,  what  was  expressed  in  Hebrew, 
by  the  aid  of  the  status  constriictiis,  as  their  gram- 
marians call  it,  or  by  prepositions,  was  expressed 
with  equal  clearness,  in  Latin,  by  means  of  de- 
clension :  whereas,  by  making  the  names  indeclin- 
able, in  this  language,  that  advantage  had  been 
lost,  in  regard  to  many  names ;  and  ambiguities, 
of  which  there  was  not  a  trace  in  the  original,  in- 
troduced into  the  translation.  The  declension  of 
proper  names  ^v^as  not,  however,  equally  essential 
to  perspicuity  in  Greek  as  in  Latin.  Their  want 
of  cases,  the  Greeks  could  supply  by  the  cases  of 
the  article,  which  the  idiom  of  their  tongue  per- 
mitted them  to  prefix.  But  the  Latins  had  no 
article.  It  was,  therefore,  very  injudicious,  in  the 
first  Latin  translators  to  imitate  the  Seventy  in 
this  particular  ;  the  more  so,  as  it  had  been  the 
common  practice  of  Latin  authors,  to  decline  the 
foreign  names  they  adopted,  in  order  the  more 
effectually  to  fit  them  for  use  in  their  tongue. 
Thus  they  said,  Hannibal  Hannibalis,  Juba  Jubce, 
and  Hanno  Hannonis.  The  inconveniences  of  the 
other  manner  appear  from  many  equivocal  pas- 
sages in  the  Vulgate,  which,  without  some  previ- 
ous knowledge  of  the  subject,  it  would  be  difficult 
to  understand  ^^^     CastaUo,  in  like  manner,  intro- 

117  Several  instances   occur  in   the  prophetical  benediction 
which  Moses  gave  to  the  twelve  tribes,  imnaediately  before  hin 


VOL.    II. 


54 


430  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xir. 

duced  into  his  version  patronymics  formed  on  the 
Grecian  model,  as  Jacobida  and  Davidides,  in 
which,  as  he  has  not  been  followed,  we  may 
conclude  that  he  is  generally  condemned  ;  and,  in 
my  opinion,  not  undeservedly,  because  the  depar- 
ture from  the  Hebrew  idiom,  in  this  instance,  is 
both  unnecessarv  and  affected. 

§  8.  But,  though  it  be  excusable  to  alter  the 
names  in  common  use,  so  far  as  to  make  them  ad- 
mit inflections  in  languages  which  use  inflections, 
since  this  alteration  answers  a  necessary  purpose ; 
to.  alter  them,  for  the  sake  of  bringing  them 
nearer  the  ancient  orthography,  or  for  the  sake 
of  assisting  us  to  produce  a  sound  in  pronounc- 
ing them,  that  may  resemble  the  sound  of  the 
ancient  names,  is  no  better  than  arrant  pedantry. 
The  use  of  proper  names  is,  as  that  of  appella- 
tives, to  serve  as  signs,  for  recalling  to  the  mind 
what  is  signified  by  them.  When  this  purpose  is 
attained,  their  end  is  answered.  Now,  as  it  is  use 
alone  which  can  convert  a  sound  into  a  sign,  a 

death,  Deut.  xxxiii.  In  verse  4.  Legem  proecipit  nobis  Moy- 
ses,  h(jereditatem  multitudinis  Jacob.  To  one  unacquainted  with 
Scripture,  it  would  not  be  obvious  that  Moyses  here  is  in  the 
nominative,  and  Jacob  in  the  genitive.  Hardly  could  it  be 
suspected,  that  in  the  following  verses,  8.  Levi  quoqtie  ait  ; 
12.  Et  Benjamin  ait  (and  so  of  the  rest,)  the  names  are  in  the 
dative.  The  form  of  the  expression  in  Latin  could  not  fail  to 
lead  an  ordinary  reader  to  understand  them  as  in  the  nomina- 
tive. Yet  nothing  can  be  more  unequivocal  than  the  words  in 
Hebrew. 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  431 

word  that  has  been  long  used  (whether  a  proper 
name  or  an  appellative)  as  the  sign  of  person  or 
thing,  genus,  species,  or  individual,  must  be  pref- 
erable to  a  new  invented,  and  therefore  unauthor- 
ized sound.  If  there  is  generally*  in  proper  names 
a  greater  resemblance  to  the  original  words  than 
in  appellatives,  this  difference  nowise  affects  the 
argument.  Appellatives  are  the  signs  of  species 
and  genera,  with  the  more  considerable  part  of 
which  the  people  are  acquainted  in  all  civilized 
countries.  Common  things  have  consequently 
names  in  all  languages  ;  and  the  names  in  one 
language  have  often  no  affinity  to  those  in  another. 
Proper  names  are  the  signs  of  individuals,  known 
originally  only  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  place 
of  their  existence,  whence  the  name  is  transferred 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  individual  into  other 
languages. 

But  the  introduction  of  the  name  is  not  because 
of  any  peculiar  propriety  in  the  sound  for  signify- 
ing what  is  meant  by  it ;  but  merely  because,  when 
the  language  we  write  does  not  supply  a  suitable 
term,  this  is  the  easiest  and  most  natural  expedi- 
ent. It  is  in  this  way  also  we  often  provide  ap- 
pellatives, when  the  thing  spoken  of,  which  some- 
times happens,  has  no  name  in  our  native  idiom. 
But  when  an  individual  thing  is  of  a  nature  to  be 
universally  known,  and  to  have  a  name  in  every 
language,  as  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  earth,  we 
never,  in  translating  from  an  ancient  tongue,  think 
of  adopting  the  name  we  find  there,  but  always 
give  our  own.     Yet  the  things  now  mentioned  are 


432  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

as  really  individuals,  as  are  Peter,  James,  and  John. 
And  when,  in  the  case  of  appellatives,  we  have 
been  obliged  at  first  to  recur  for  a  name,  to  the 
language  whence  we  drew  our  knowledge  of  the 
thing,  we  never  think  afterwards  of  reforming 
the  term,  because  not  so  closely  formed  on  the 
original,  as  it  might  have  been.  It  has,  by  its 
currency,  produced  that  association  which  confers 
on  it  the  power  of  a  sign,  and  this  is  all  that  the 
original  term  itself  ever  had,  or  could  have.  Who 
would  think  of  reforming  flail  into  Jlagel,  messeng- 
er into  message}^,  and  nurse  into  nourrice,  that 
they  may  be  nearer,  the  first  to  the.  Latin,  or 
perhaps  the  German,  and  the  second  and  third  to 
the  French  originals  } 

§  9.  Besides,  in  translating  Hebrew  names,  the 
attempt  was  the  more  vain,  as  little  or  nothing 
was  known  about  their  pronunciation.  The  man- 
ner of  pronouncing  the  consonants  is  judged  of 
very  differently  by  the  critics  ;  and  as  to  the  vow- 
els, who  has  not  heard  what  contests  they  have 
occasioned  among  the  learned  ?  But  what  ren- 
dered this  attempt,  at  giving  the  exact  pronuncia- 
tion, completely  ridiculous,  is,  that  it  was  made  in 
Latin,  a  dead  language,  of  whose  pronunciation 
also  we  have  no  standard,  and  in  the  speaking  or 
reading  of  which,  every  different  nation  follows  a 
different  rule.  Harmony  among  themselves, 
therefore,  was  not  to  be  expected  in  men  who  had 
taken  this  whim.  Accordingly,  when  they  once 
began  to  innovate,  every  one  innovated  after  his 
own  fashion,  and  had  a  list  of  names  peculiar  to 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  433 

himself.     This,  with  reasonable  people,  has   suf- 
ficiently exposed  the  folly  of  the  conceit. 

§  10.    Now,   though    our   translators   have   not 
made  the  violent  stretches   made  by  Pagnin  and 
others,  for  the  sake   of  adjusting  the  names  to  the 
original  sounds,  and  have  not  distressed  our  organs 
of  speech  with  a  collision  of  letters  hardly  uttera- 
ble  ;  there  is  one  article  on  which  I  do  not  think 
them  entirely  without  blame.     The  names  of  the 
same  persons,  and  in  effect  the  same  names,  are 
sometimes  rendered   differently   by    them   in  the 
New  Testament,  from  what  they  had  been  render- 
ed in  the  Old ;  and  that,  on  account  of  a  very  incon- 
siderable   difference   in  the  spelling,    or   perhaps 
only  in  the  termination  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek. 
By  this  the  sense  has  been   injured  to   ordinary 
readers,  who  are  more  generally  ignorant  than  we 
are  apt  to  imagine,  of  the  persons  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, meant  by  the  names  in  the   New.     Now 
this   is    a  species   of  Tcaxo^i^kia,  from  which   the 
authors  of  the  Vulgate  were  free. 

The  old  Italic  had  been  made  from  the  Greek 
of  the  Seventy.  The  names  by  consequence 
were  more  accommodated  to  the  Greek  orthogra- 
phy than  to  the  Hebrew.  But  as  that  was  a  mat- 
ter of  no  consequence,  when  Jerom  undertook  to 
translate  from  the  Hebrew,  he  did  not  think  it 
expedient  to  make  any  changes  in  the  proper 
names  to  which  the  people  had  been  habituated 
from  their  infancy.  He  knew  that  this  might  have 
led  some  readers  into  mistakes,  and,  as  appearing 


434  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

awkward  and  affected,  would  be  disagreeable  to 
others :  at  the  same  time  there  was  no  conceiva- 
ble advantage  from  it  to  compensate  these  incon- 
veniences. For,  to  tell  the  Latin  reader  more  ex- 
actly how  the  Hebrew  proper  names  sounded  (if 
that  could  have  been  done,)  was  of  no  more  sig- 
nificance to  him,  than  to  acquaint  him  with  the 
sound  of  their  appellatives.  He  therefore  judg- 
ed rightly,  in  preserving  in  the  Old  Testament, 
though  he  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  the  names 
to  w^hich  the  people  were  accustomed,  as  Elias, 
and  Eliseus,  and  Esdras,  and  Nebuchodonosor, 
which  were  formed  immediately  from  the  Greek. 
By  this  means  there  was  an  uniformity  in  the 
manner  of  translating  both  Testaments.  The 
prophets,  and  other  eminent  ancients,  were  not  dis- 
tinguished by  one  name  in  one  part  of  the  sacred 
text,  and  by  another  in  the  other.  Whereas  the 
attempt  at  tracing  servilely  the  letter  in  each  part, 
has  given  us  two  sets  of  names  for  the  same  per- 
sons, of  which  the  inconveniences  are  glaring,  but 
the  advantages  invisible. 

§  11.  It  may  be  thought  indeed  a  matter  of 
little  consequence,  and  that  the  names,  if  not  the 
same,  do  at  least  so  closely  resemble,  that  they 
can  hardly  be  mistaken  for  the  names  of  different 
persons.  But  I  have  had  occasion  to  discover 
that  many  of  the  unlearned,  though  neither  igno- 
rant nor  deficient  in  understanding,  know  not 
that  Elias,  so  often  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  the  Elijah  of  the  Old,  that  Eliseus  is 
Elisha,  that    Osee  is  Hosea,  and  that  the   Jesus, 


r.  in.]  DISSERTATIONS.  335 

mentioned  once  in  the  Acts  "^  and  once  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  "^,  is  Joshua.  Had  the 
names  been  totally  different  in  the  original,  there 
might  have  been  some  reason  for  adopting  this 
method.  The  old  Oriental  names  are  often  of 
use  for  pointing  out  the  founders  of  nations,  fami- 
lies, and  tribes,  and  the  more  recent  Greek  names 
serve  to  connect  those  early  notices  with  the  later 
accounts  of  Greek  and  Roman  historians.  If  they 
had,  therefore,  in  the  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, given,  as  in  the  original,  the  name  Mizraim 
to  Egypt,  Aram  to  Syria,  and  Javan  to  Greece, 
inuch  might  have  been  urged  in  defence  of  this 
manner.  But  when  all  the  difference  in  the 
words  results  from  an  insignificant  alteration  in 
the  spelling,  in  order  to  accommodate  the  Hebrew 
name  to  Grecian  ears ;  to  consider  them  on  that 
account  as  different  names,  and  translate  them 
differently,  does  not  appear  susceptible  of  a  ra- 
tional apology. 

What  should  we  think  of  a  translator  of  Polyb-  \ 
ius,  for  example,  who  should  always  call  Carthage 
Karchedon,  and  Hannibal  Annibas,  because  the 
words  of  his  author  are  Kag/rfSav  and  AwLSa?,  or, 
to  come  nearer  home,  should,  in  translating  into 
English  from  the  French,  call  London  Londres^ 
and  the  Hague  La  Haye.  It  can  be  ascribed 
solely  to  the  almost  irresistible  influence  of  ex- 
ample, that  our  translators,  who  were  eminent  for 
their  discernment  as  well  as  their  learning,  have 
been  drawn  into  this  frivolous  innovation.     At  the 


"8  Acts,  vii.  45.  "  "'  Heb.  iv.  8. 


T        i. 


■!>1  ) 


436  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xti. 

same  time  their  want  of  uniformity,  in  using  this 
method,  seems  to  betray  a  consciousness  of  some 
impropriety  in  it,  and  that  it  tended  unnecessarily 
to  darken  what  in  itself  is  perfectly  clear.  Ac- 
cordingly, they  have  not  thought  it  advisable  to 
exhibit  the  names  in  the  most  frequent  use,  differ- 
ently in  different  parts  of  Scripture,  or  even  differ- 
ently from  the  names  by  which  the  persons  are 
known  in  profane  history.  Thus  he  whom  they 
have  called  Moses  in  the  New  Testament,  is  not 
in  the  Old  Testament  made  Mosheh,  nor  Solomon 
Shelom\h ;  nor  is  Artaxerxes  rendered  Jrtachshas- 
ta,  nor  Cyrus  Ckoresh,  agreeably  to  the  Hebrew 
orthography,  though  the  names  of  the  two  last 
mentioned,  are  not  derived  to  us  from  the  New 
Testament,  but  from  pagan  historians. 

§  12.  Noi'  that  I  think  it  of  any  moment  whether 
the  names  be  derived  from  the  Greek,  or  from 
the  Hebrew,  or  from  any  other  language.  The 
matters  of  consequence  here  are  only  these  two. 
First,  to  take  the  name  in  the  most  current  use, 
whether  it  be  formed  from  the  Hebrew,  from  the 
Greek,  or  from  the  Latin ;  secondly,  to  use  the 
same  name  in  both  Testaments,  when  the  differ- 
ence made  on  it,  in  the  two  languages,  is  merely 
such  a  change  in  the  spelling  and  termination,  as 
commonly  takes  place  in  transplanting  a  word 
from  one  tongue  into  another.  Nothing  can  be 
more  vain  than  the  attempt  to  bring  ns,  in  pro- 
nouncing names,  to  a  stronger  resemblance  to  the 
original  sounds.     Were  this,  as  it  is  not,  an  object 


p.  ,11.]  DISSERTATIONS.  437 

deserving  the  attention  of  an  interpreter,  it  were 
easy  to  show  that  the  methods  employed  for  this 
purpose  have  often  had  the  contrary  effect.  We 
have  in  this  mostly  followed  German  and  Dutch 
linguists. 

Admitting  that   they  came  near  the   truth,  ac- 
cording to  their  rule  of  pronouncing,  which  is  the 
utmost  they  can  ask,  the  powers  of  the  same  nom- 
inal letters  are  different  in  the  different  languages 
spoken  at  present  in  Europe  ;  and  we,  by  follow- 
ing their  spelling,  even  when  they  were  in  the 
right,   have    departed   farther    from   the    original 
^ound  than  we«,  were  before.      The   consonant  J, 
sounds  in  German  like  our  y  in  the   word  year, 
sch  with  them  sounds  like  our  sh,  like  the  French 
ch,  and  like  the  Italian  5^,  when  it  immediately  C 
precedes  i  or  e ;  whereas  sch  with  us  has  general- 
ly the  same  sound  with  sk,  and  the  consonant  j 
the  same  with  g  before  i  or  e.     Besides,  the  let- 
ters which  with  us  have  »lifferent  sounds  in  differ- 
ent situations,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  were 
sounded    uniformly  in   ancient  languages,   or,  at 
least,  did  not  undergo  alterations  correspondent  to 
ours.      Thus   the    brook   called  Kidron,   in   the 
common  version  in  the  Old  Testament,  is,  for  the 
sake,  I   suppose,  of  a   closer  conformity  to    the 
Greek,  called  Cedro7i  in  the  New.    Yet  the  c  in  our 
language  in  this  situation,  is  sounded  exactly  as 
the  s,  a  sound  which  we  have  good  ground  to  think 
that  the  corresponding  letter  in  Hebrew,  Greek, 
and  Latin  never  had. 
VOL.  II.  55 


438  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xti. 

§  13.  The  rules,  therefore,  which  I  have  follow- 
ed in  expressing  proper  names,  are  these  :  First, 
when  the  name  of  the  same  person  or  thing  is,  in 
the  common  translation,  both  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  in  the  New,  expressed  in  the  same  man- 
ner, whether  it  be  derived  from  the  Hebrew,  or 
from  the  Greek,  I  miiformly  employ  it,  because  in 
that  case  it  has  always  the  sanction  of  good  use. 
Thus  Moses  and  Jlaron^  David  and  Solomon,  Jeru- 
salem and  Jericho,  Bethlehem  and  Jordan,  and 
many  others,  remain  in  the  places  of  which  they 
have  had  immemorial  possession ;  though  of  these 
Moses  and  Solomon  are  directly  from  the  Greek, 
the  rest  from  the  Hebrew.  Secondly,  when  the 
name  of  the  same  person  or  thing  is  expressed,  in 
the  common  translation,  differently  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  in  the  New  (the  difference  being 
such  as  results  from  adapting  words  of  one  lan- 
guage to  the  articulation  of  another,)  I  have,  ex- 
cept in  a  very  few  cases,  preferred  the  word 
used  in  the  Old  Testament.  This  does  not  pro- 
ceed from  the  desire  of  coming  nearer  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  Hebrew  root :  for  that  is  a 
matter  of  no  consequence ;  but  from  the  desire 
of  preventing,  as  far  as  possible,  all  mistakes  in 
regard  to  the  persons  or  things  spoken  of.  It  is 
from  the  Old  Testament,  that  we  have  commonly 
what  is  known  of  the  individuals  mentioned  in  it, 
and  referred  to  in  the  New.  By  naming  them 
differently,  there  is  a  danger  lest  the  person  or 
thing  alluded  to  be  mistaken. 

For  this  reason,  I  say,  Elijah,  not  Elias  ;  Elisha, 
not  Eliseus ;  Isaiah,  not  Esaias ;  Kidron,  not  Ce- 


p.  III.]  DISSERTATIONS.  439 

dron.  For  this  reason,  also,  in  the  catalogues  of 
our  Lord's  progenitors,  both  in  Matthew  and  in 
Luke,  I  have  given  the  names,  as  they  are  spelt 
in  the  common  version  of  the  Old  Testament. 
From  this  rule  I  admit  some  exceptions.  In  a 
few  instances,  the  thing  mentioned  is  better 
known,  either  by  what  is  said  of  it  in  the  New 
Testament,  or  by  the  information  w^e  derive  from 
Pagan  authors,  than  by  what  we  find  in  the  Old. 
In  this  case,  the  name,  in  the  New  Testament,  has 
a  greater  currency  than  that  used  in  the  Old,  and 
consequently,  according  to  my  notion  of  what 
ought  to  regulate  our  choice,  is  entitled  to  the 
preference.  For  this  reason,  I  say  Sarepta  and 
Sido7i,  not  Zarephath  and  Zidon ;  as  the  former 
names  are  rendered,  by  classical  use,  as  well  as 
that  of  the  New  Testament,  more  familiar  than 
the  latter.  Thirdly,  when  the  same  name  is  given 
by  the  sacred  writers,  in  their  own  language,  to 
different  persons,  which  the  English  translators 
have  rendered  differently  in  the  different  applica- 
tions, I  have  judged  it  reasonable  to  adopt  this 
distinction,  made  by  our  old  interpreters,  as  con- 
ducing to  perspicuit}^  The  name  of  Jacob's 
fourth  son  is  the  same  with  that  of  two  of  the 
Apostles.  But  as  the  first  rule  obliges  me  to  give 
the  Old  Testament  name  Judah  to  the  Patriarch,  I 
have  reserved  the  term  Judas,  as  used  in  the 
New,  for  the  two  Apostles.  This  also  suits  uni- 
versal and  present  use  :  for  we  never  call  the  Patri- 
arch Judas,  nor  any  of  the  Apostles  Judah.  The 
proper  name  of  our  Lord  is  the  same  with  that  of 
Joshua,  who  is,  in  the  Septuagint,  always  called 


440  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

Irfdovg,  and  is  twice  so  named  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Every  body  must  be  sensible  of  the  ex- 
pediency of  confining  the  Old  Testament  name  to 
the  captain  of  the  host  of  Israel,  and  the  other  to 
the  Messiah.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the 
name  of  Aaron's  sister,  and  that  of  our  Lord's 
mother,  were  originally  the  same.  The  former  is 
called,  in  the  Septuagint,  Magia^i,  the  name  also 
given  to  the  latter  by  the  Evangelist  Luke. 
The  other  Evangelists  commonly  say  Magia. 
But  as  use,  with  us,  has  appropriated  Miriam 
to  the  first,  and  Mary  to  the  second,  it  could 
answer  no  valuable  purpose  to  confound  them. 
The  name  of  the  father  of  the  twelve  tribes 
is,  in  the  Oriental  dialects,  the  same  with  that 
of  one  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  that  of  the 
son  of  Alpheus.  A  small  distinction  is,  indeed, 
made  by  the  Evangelists,  who  add  a  Greek  termi- 
nation to  the  Hebrew  name,  when  they  apply  it  to 
the  Apostles,  which,  when  they  apply  it  to  the 
Patriarch,  they  never  do.  If  our  translators  had 
copied  as  minutely,  in  this  instance,  as  they  have 
done  in  some  others,  the  Patriarch,  they  would 
indeed  have  named  Jacob,  and  each  of  the  two 
Apostles  Jacobus.  However,  as  in  naming  the 
two  last,  they  have  thought  fit  to  substitue  James, 
which  use  also  has  confirmed,  I  have  preserved 
this  distinction. 

§  14.  Upon  the  whole,  in  all  that  concerns  prop- 
er names,  I  have  conformed  to  the  judicious  rule 
of  king  James  the  first,  more  strictly,  I  suppose, 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  441 

than  those  translators  to  whom  it  was  recommend- 
ed :  "  The  names  of  the  Prophets,  and  the  holy 
"  writers,  with  the  other  names  in  the  text,  are  to 
"  be  retained,  as  near  as  may  be,  according  as 
"  they  are  vulgarly  used." 


PART  IV. 


THE    OUTJTARD    FORM    OF    THE    VERSION. 

I  AM  now  to  offer  a  few  things  on  the  form  in 
which   this   translation   is   exhibited.     It   is   well 
known,  that  the  division  of  the  books  of  holy  writ, 
into  chapters  and  verses,  does  not  proceed  from 
the   inspired   writers,   but  is  a  contrivance  of  a 
much  later  date.     Even  the  punctuation,  for  dis- 
tinguishing the   sentences  from  one  another,  and 
dividing  every  sentence  into  its  constituent  mem- 
bers and  clauses,  though  a  more  ancient  invention, 
was,  for  many  ages,  except  by  grammarians  and 
rhetoricians,    hardly    ever   used   in   transcribing ; 
insomuch,  that  whatever  depends  merely  on  the 
division  of  sentences,  on  points,  aspirations,  and 
accents,  cannot  be  said  to  rest  ultimately,  as  the 
words  themselves  do,  upon  the  authority  of  the 
sacred    penmen.       These    particulars    give    free 
scope    for   the    sagacity    of   criticism,   and   unre- 
strained  exercise  to  the  talent  of  investigating  ; 


442  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

inasmuch  as  in  none  of  these  points  is  there  any- 
ground  for  the  plea  of  inspiration. 

§  2.  As  to  the  division  into  chapters  and  verses, 
we  know  that  the  present  is  not  that  which  ob- 
tained in  primitive  ages,  and  that  even  the  earliest 
division  is  not  derived  from  the  Apostles,  but  from 
some  of  their  first  commentators,  who,  for  the 
conveniency  of  readers,  contrived  this  method. 
The  division  into  chapters,  that  now  universally 
prevails  in  Europe,  derived  its  origin  from  cardi- 
nal Caro,  who  lived  in  the  twelfth  century :  the 
subdivision  into  verses  is  of  no  older  date  than 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  was  the 
invention  of  Robert  Stevens.  That  there  are 
many  advantages  which  result  from  so  minute  a 
partition  of  the  sacred  oracles,  cannot  be  denied. 
The  facility  with  which  any  place,  in  consequence 
of  this  method,  is  pointed  out  by  the  writer,  and 
found  by  the  reader,  the  easy  recourse  it  gives, 
in  consulting  commentators,  to  the  passage  where- 
of the  explanation  is  wanted,  the  aid  it  has  afford- 
ed to  the  compilers  of  concordances,'  which  are  of 
considerable  assistance  in  the  study  of  Scripture ; 
these,  and  many  other  accommodations,  have 
accrued  from  this  contrivance. 

§  3.  It  is  not,  however,  without  its  inconveni- 
ences. This  manner  of  mincing  a  connected 
work  into  short  sentences,  detached  from  one 
another,  not  barely  in  appearance,  by  their  being 
ranked  under  separate  numbers,  and  by  the 
breaks  in  the  lines,  but  in  effect,  by  the  infljuence 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  443 

which  the  text,  thus  parcelled  out,  has  insensibly 
had  on  copiers  and  translators,  both  in  pointing,  and 
in  translating,  is  not  well  suited  to  the  species  of 
composition  which  obtains  in  all  the  sacred  books, 
except  the  Psalms,  and  the  Book  of  Proverbs. 
To  the  epistolary  and  argumentative  style  it  is 
extremely  ill  adapted,  as  has  been  well  evinced 
by  Mr.  Locke  *^°;  neither  does  it  suit  the  histor- 
ical. There  are  inconveniences  which  would  re- 
sult from  this  way  of  dividing,  even  if  executed 
in  the  best  manner  possible  :  but,  though  I  am 
unwilling  to  detract  from  the  merit  of  an  expedi- 
ent which  has  been  productive  of  some  good 
consequences,  I  cannot  help  observing  that  the 
inventors  have  been  far  too  hasty  in  conducting 
the  execution. 

The  subject  is  sometimes  interrupted  by  the 
division  into  chapters.  Of  this  I  might  produce 
many  examples,  but,  for  brevity's  sake,  shall  men- 
tion only  a  few.  The  last  verse  of  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  Matthew  is  much  more  closely  con- 
nected with  what  follows  in  the  sixteenth,  than 
with  what  precedes.  In  like  manner,  the  last 
verse  of  the  nineteenth  chapter.  Many  shall  be 
first  that  are  last,  and  last  that  are  first,  ought  not 
to  be  disjoined,  (I  say  not,  from  the  subsequent 
chapter,  but  even)  from  the  subsequent  paragraph, 
which  contains  the  parable  of  the  labourers  hired 
to  work  in  the  vineyard,  brought  merely  in  illus- 
tration of  that  sentiment,  and  beginning  and  end- 

120  Essay  for  the  understanding  of  St.  PauVs  Epistles,  prefixed 
to  his  paraphrase  and  notes  on  some  of  the  Epistles. 


444  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

ing  with  it.  The  first  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter 
of  Mark  is  much  more  properly  joined  to  the  con- 
cluding paragraph  of  the  fourth  chapter,  as  it 
shows  the  completeness  of  the  miracle  there 
related,  than  to  what  follows  in  the  fifth.  The 
like  may  be  remarked  of  the  first  verse  of  the 
ninth  chapter.  Of  the  division  into  verses,  it  may 
be  observed,  that  it  often  occasions  an  unnatural 
separation  of  the  members  of  the  same  sen- 
tence ^^^  ;  nay,  sometimes,  which  is  worse,  the 
same  verse  comprehends  a  part  of  two  different 
sentences. 

That  this  division  should  often  have  a  bad  effect 
upon  translators  is  inevitable.  First,  by  attending 
narrowly  to  the  verses,  an  interpreter  runs  the 
risk  of  overlooking  the  right,  and  adopting  a  wrong, 
division  of  the  sentences.  Of  this  I  shall  give 
one  remarkable  example  from  the  Gospel  of 
John^^l  Our  Lord  says,  in  one  of  his  discourses, 
Eya  sifiL  'o  Ttoi^Tfv  'o  xaXos-  xat  yivcoaxG)  xa  sfia, 
Tcai  yivaaycofidi  ^vito  rcov  Sfiov,  xa&as  yLvaaxst  fXB 
'o  Ttarr^g^  xaya  yivcodxa  rov  Ttarsga-  xai  tijv  ipv/rfv 
fiov  Tid-rjfxi  "vTteg  zav  Ttgo^axav.  When  the  sen- 
tence is  thus  pointed,  as  it  manifestly  ought  to  be, 
and  exhibited  unbroken  by  the  division  into  vers- 
es, no  person  can  doubt  that  the  following  ver- 
sion is  equally  close  to  the  letter  and  to  the  sense. 
/  am  the  good  Shepherd ;  I  both  knoiv  my  oivn, 
and  am  knoivn  by  them,  even  as  the  Father  know- 
eth  me,  and  I  know  the  Father ;  and  I  lay  down 

121  In  Matth.  xi.  2.  we  have  a  verse  without  a  verb,  and  end- 
ing with  a  comma. 

122  John,  X.  14,  15. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  445 

my  life  for  the  sheep.  But  its  being  divided  into 
two  sentences,  and  put  into  separate  verses,  has 
occasioned  the  disjointed  and  improper  version 
given  in  the  common  translation.  14.  /  am  the 
good  Shepherd  and  knoiv  my  -sheep  ;  and  am 
known  of  mine.  15.  Jts  the  Father  knoweth  me, 
even  so  know  I  the  Father :  and  I  lay  down  jny 
life  for  the  sheep.  In  this  artificial  distribution 
(which  seems  to  have  originated  from  Beza  ;  for 
he  acknowledges  that  before  him,  the  fifteenth 
verse  included  only  the  last  member,  and  I  lay 
doivn,  &c.)  the  second  sentence  is  an  abrupt,  and 
totally  unconnected,  interruption  of  what  is  affirm- 
ed in  the  prece'ding  words,  and  in  the  following. 
Whereas,  taking  the  words  as  they  stand  naturally, 
it  is  an  illustration  by  similitude  quite  in  our 
Lord's  manner,  of  what  he  had  affirmed  in  the 
'foregoing  words.  But,  though  the  translator 
should  not  be  misled  in  this  manner,  a  desire  of 
preserving,  in  every  verse  of  his  translation,  all 
that  is  found  in  the  corresponding  verse  of  his 
original,  that  he  may  adjust  the  one  to  the  other, 
and  give  verse  for  verse,  may  oblige  him  to  give 
the  words  a  more  unnatural  arrangement,  in  his 
own  language,  than  he  would  have  thought  of  do- 
ing, if  there  had  been  no  such  division  into  verses, 
and  he  had  been  left  to  regulate  himself  solely  by 
the  sense. 

§  4.  Influenced  by  these  considerations,  I  have 
determined,  neither  entirely  to  reject  the  common 
division,  nor  to  adopt  it  in  the  manner  which  is 
usually  done.     To  reject  it  entirely,  would  be  to 

VOL.  n.  56 


446 


PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 


give  up  one  of  the  greatest  conveniences  we  have 
in  the  use  of  any  version,  for  every  purpose  of 
occasional  consultation,  and  examination,  as  well 
as  for  comparing  it  with  the  original,  and  with 
other  versions.  Nor  is  it  enough  that  a  more 
commodious  division  than  the  present  may  be 
devised,  which  shall  answer  all  the  useful  pur- 
poses of  the  common  version,  without  its  incon- 
veniences. Still  there  are  some  advantages  which 
a  new  division  could  not  have,  at  least,  for  many 
centuries.  The  common  division,  such  as  it  is, 
has  prevailed  universally,  and  does  prevail,  not  in 
this  kingdom  only,  but  throughout  all  Christen- 
dom. Concordances  in  different  languages,  com- 
mentaries, versions,  paraphrases;  all  theological 
works,  critical,  polemical,  devotional,  practical,  in 
their  order  of  commenting  on  Scripture,  and  in 
all.  their  references  to  Scripture,  regulate  them- 
selves by  it.  If  we  would  not  then  have  a  new 
version  rendered  in  a  great  measure  useless,  to 
those  who  read  the  old,  or  even  the  original,  in 
the  form  wherein  it  is  now  invariably  printed,  or 
who  have  recourse  to  any  of  the  helps  above 
mentioned,  we  are  constrained  to  adopt,  in  some 
shape  or  other,  the  old  division. 

§  5.  For  these  reasons,  I  have  judged  it  neces- 
sary to  retain  it ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  disadvantages  attending  it,  I  have  fol- 
lowed the  method  taken  by  some  other  editors,  and 
confined  it  to  the  margin.  This  answers  suffici- 
ently all  the  purposes  of  reference  and  comparison, 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  447 

without  tending  so  directly  to  interrupt  the  reader, 
and  divert  him  from  perceiving;  the  natural  con- 
nection of  the  things  treated.  I  have  also  adopted 
such  a  new  division  into  sections  and  paragraphs, 
as  appeared  to  me  better  suited-  than  the  former, 
both  to  the  subject  of  these  histories,  and  to  the 
manner  of  treating  it.  Nothing,  surely,  can  be 
more  incongruous,  than  to  cut  down  a  coherent 
narrative  into  shreds,  and  give  it  the  appearance 
of  a  collection  of  aphorisms.  This,  therefore,  I 
have  carefully  avoided.  The  sections  are,  one 
with  another,  nearly  equal  to  two  chapters  ;  a  few 
pfthem  more,  but  many  less.  In  making  this  di- 
vision, I  have  been  determined,  partly  by  the  sense, 
and  partly  by  the  size.  In  every  section  I  have 
included  such  a  portion  of  Scripture  as  seemed 
proper  to  be  read  at  one  time,  by  those  who  regu- 
larly devote  a  part  of  every  day  to  this  truly 
Christian  exercise.  To  make  all  the  portions  of 
equal  length,  or  nearly  so,  was  utterly  incompati- 
ble with  a  proper  regard  to  the  sense.  I  have 
avoided  breaking  off  in  the  middle  of  a  distinct 
story,  parable,  conversation,  or  even  discourse,  de- 
livered in  continuance. 

The  length  of  three  of  the  longest  sections  in 
this  work,  was  occasioned  by  the  resolution,  not  to 
disjoin  the  parts  of  one  continued  discourse.  The 
sections  I  allude  to  are,  the  sermon  on  the  mounts 
and  the  prophecy  on  Olivet,  as  recorded  by 
Matthew,  together  with  our  Lord's  valedictory 
consolations  to  his  disciples,  as  related  by  John. 
The  first  occupies  three   ordinary  chapters,  the 


448  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xn. 

second  two  long  ones,  and  the  third  four  short 
chapters.  But,  though  I  have  avoided  making  a 
separation,  where  the  scope  of  the  place  requires 
unity,  I  could  not,  in  a  consistency  with  any  re- 
gard to  size,  allot  a  separate  section  to  every  sepa- 
rate incident,  parable,  conversation,  or  miracle. 
When  these,  therefore,  are  briefly  related,  inso- 
much that  two  or  more  of  them  can  be  included  in 
a  section  of  moderate  length,  I  have  separated 
them  only  by  paragraphs.  The  length  of  the 
paragraph  is  determined  merely  by  the  sense. 
Accordingly,  some  of  them  contain  no  more  than 
a  verse  of  the  common  division,  and  others  little 
less  than  a  chapter.  One  parable  makes  one 
paragraph.  When  an  explanation  is  given  sepa- 
rately, the  explanation  makes  another.  When 
it  follows  immediately,  and  is  expressed  very 
briefly,  both  are  included  in  one.  Likewise  one 
miracle  makes  one  paragraph  ;  but  when  the  nar- 
rative is  interrupted,  and  another  miracle  inter- 
venes, as  happens  in  the  story  of  the  daughter  of 
Jairus,  more  paragraphs  are  requisite.  When  the 
transition,  in  respect  of  the  sense,  seems  to  require 
a  distinction  more  strongly  marked,  it  has  been 
judged  expedient  to  leave  a  blank  line,  and  begin 
the  next  paragraph  with  a  word  in  capitals. 

§  6.  It  was  not  thought  necessary  to  number  the 
paragraphs,  as  tliis  way  is  now,  unless  in  particu- 
lar cases,  and  for  special  purposes,  rather  unusual ; 
and  as  all  the  use  of  reference  and  quotation  may 
be  sufficiently  answered  by  the  old  division  on  the 
margin.     In  the  larger  distribution  into  sections,  I 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  449 

have,  according  to  the  most  general  custom,  both 
numbered  and  titled  them.     But  as  to  this  method 
of  dividing,  I  will  not  pretend  that  it  is  not,  in  a 
good  measure,  arbitrary,  and  that  it  might  not,  with 
equal  propriety,  have  been   conducted  otherwise. 
As  it  was  necessary  to  comprehend  distinct  things 
in  the  same   section,  there  was  no   clear  rule  by 
which  one  could,  in  all  cases,  be  directed  where  to 
make  the  separation.     It  was  indeed  evident  that, 
wherever  it  could  occasion  an  unseasonable  inter- 
ruption in  narration,  dialogue,  or  argument,  it  was 
improper :  and  that  this  was  all  that  could  be  as- 
certained with  precision.     The   titles  of  the   sec- 
tions I  have   made  as  brief  as  possible,  that  they 
may  be  the   more   easily  remembered ;  and  have, 
for  this  purpose,  employed  words,  as  we  find  some 
employed  in  the   rubric  of  the  common  prayer, 
which  have  not  been  admitted  into  the  text.     To 
these  I  have  added,  in  the  same  taste,  the  contents 
of  the   section,  avoiding  minuteness,  and  giving 
only  such  hints  of  the  principal  matters,  as  may 
assist  the  reader   to  recall  them   to   his   remem- 
brance, and  may  enable  him,  at  first  glance,  to  dis- 
cover whether  a  passage  he  is  looking  for,  be  in 
the  section,  or  not.     I  have  endeavoured  to  avoid 
the  fault  of  those  who   make   the  contents  of  the 
chapters  supply,  in  some   degree,  a  commentary, 
limiting  the  sense  of  Scripture  by  their  own  ideas. 
Those  who  have  not  dared  to  make  so  free  with 
the   text,   have   thought    themselves    entitled   to 
make  free  with  these   abridgments  of  their  own 
framing.     To  insert  thus   without  hesitation  into 


450  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

the  contents  prefixed  to  the  several  chapters,  and 
thereby  insinuate,  under  the  shelter  of  inspiration, 
doubtful  meanings  which  favour  their  own  prepos- 
sessions, I  cannot  help  considering  as  one  way  of 
handling  the  word  of  God  deceitfully.  I  have, 
therefore,  avoided  throwing  any  thing  into  those 
summaries,  which  could  be  called  explanator}^  and 
have,  besides,  thought  it  better  to  assign  them  a 
separate  place  in  this  work,  where  the  reader  may 
consult  them,  when  he  chuses,  than  to  intermix 
them  with  the  truths  we  have  directly  from  the 
sacred  writers. 

§  7.  Most  translators  have  found  it  necessary  to 
supply  some  words,  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity, 
and  for  accommodating  the  expression  to  the 
idiom  of  the  language  into  which  the  version  is 
made,  who;  at  the  same  time,  to  avoid  even  the 
appearance  of  assuming  an  undue  authorit}^  to 
themselves,  have  visibly  distinguished  the  words 
supplied,  from  the  rest  of  the  sentence.  Thus  the 
English  translators,  after  Beza  and  others,  always 
put  the  words  in  Italics  by  which  an  ellipsis  in  the 
original,  that  does  not  suit  our  idiom,  is  filled  up. 
Though  I  approve  their  motives  in  using  this 
method,  as  they  are  strong  indications  of  fairness 
and  attention  to  accuracy ;  I  cannot  help  thinking 
that,  in  the  execution,  they  have  sometimes  car- 
ried it  to  excess.  In  consequence  of  the  structure 
of  the  original  languages,  several  things  are  dis- 
tinctly, though  implicitly,  expressed,  which  have 
no  explicit  signs  in  the  sentence.  The  personal 
pronouns,  for  example,  both  in  power  and  in  num- 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  451 

ber,  are  as  clearly,  though  virtually,  expressed  in 
their  tongue,  by  the  verb  alone,  as  they  are  in 
ours,  by  a  separate  sign.  Thus,  flmo,  in  Latin,  is 
not  less  full  and  expressive  than  /  love  in  English, 
or  amavistis  than  ye  have  loved.  And  it  would  be 
exceedingly  improper  to  say  that  in  the  former 
language  there  is  an  ellipsis  of  the  pronoun,  since 
the  verb  actually  expresses  it.  For  amo  can  be 
said  of  none  but  the  first  person  singular,  and 
amavistis  of  none  but  the  second  person  plural. 
The  like  holds  in  other  instances.  The  adjective 
sometimes  includes  the  power  of  the  substantive. 
Bonus  is  a  good  man,  bona  a  good  woman,  and  bo- 
num  a  good  thiifg.  Yet  to  mark  an  ellipsis  arising 
from  such  a  want  as  that  of  a  word  corresponding 
to  man,  woman,  and  thing,  in  the  above  expres- 
sions, the  Italic  character  has  sometimes  been  in- 
troduced, by  our  translators. 

§  8.  I  REMEMBER  that,  whcn  I  first  observed  this 
distinction  of  character  in  the  English  Bible,  being 
then  a  school-boy,  I  asked  my  elder  brother,  who 
had  been  at  college,  the  reason  of  the  difference. 
He  told  me  that  the  words  in  Italics  were  words  to 
which  there  was  nothing  in  the  original  that  cor- 
responded. This  made  me  take  greater  notice 
of  the  difference  afterwards,  and  often  attempt  to 
read,  passing  over  those  words  entirely.  As  this 
sometimes  succeeded,  without  any  appearance  of 
deficiency  in  the  sentence,  I  could  not  be  satisfied 
with  the  propriety  of  some  of  the  insertions. 
These    words    particularly   attracted    my    atten- 


452  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xn. 

tion  ^^' :  Two  women  shall  be  grinding  at  the  mill, 
where  the  word  women  is  in  Itahcs.  I  could  not 
conceive  where  the  occasion  was  for  inserting  this 
word.  Could  it  be  more  improper  to  say,  barely, 
two  shall  be  grinding  at  the  mill,  than  to  say,  as  in 
the  former  verse,  tivo  shall  be  in  the  Jield,  without 
limiting  it  to  either  sex  ?  And  since  the  Evange- 
list expressed  both  in  the  same  manner,  was  any 
person  entitled  to  make  a  difference  ?  On  having 
recourse  again  for  information,  I  was  answered 
that  the  Evangelist  had  not  expressed  them  both 
in  the  same  manner ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  the 
first,  as  written  by  him,  could  be  understood  only 
of  men,  the  second  only  of  women ;  as  all  the 
words  susceptible  of  gender  were  in  the  fortieth 
verse  in  the  masculine,  and  in  the  forty-first  in  the 
feminine.  I  understood  the  answer,  having,  before 
that  time,  learnt  as  much  Latin  as  sufficiently 
showed  me  the  effect  produced,  by  the  gender, 
on  the  sense.  What  then  appeared  to  me  unac- 
countable in  the  translators  was,  first,  their  put- 
ting the  word  icomen  in  Italics,  since,  though  it 
had  not  a  particular  word  corresponding  to  it,  it 
was  clearly  comprehended  in  the  other  words 
of  the  passage ;  and,  secondly,  their  not  adding 
men  in  the  fortieth  verse,  because,  by  these  two 
successive  verses,  the  one  in  the  masculine,  the 
other  in  the  feminine  gender,  it  appeared  the 
manifest  intention  of  the  author  to  acquaint  us, 

"'Matth.  xxiv.  40,  41. 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  453 

that  both  sexes  would  be  involved  in  the  calami- 
ties of  the  times  spoken  of. 

This  is  but  one  instance  of  many  which  might 
be  given  to  show  how^  little  dependance  we  can 
have  on  those  marks;  and  that -if  the  unlearned 
were  to  judge  of  the  perspicuity  of  the  original 
(as  I  once  did)  from  the  additions  which  it  seems 
by  the  common  version  to  have  required,  their 
judgment  would  be  both  unfavourable,  and  errone- 
ous. The  original  has,  in  many  cases,  a  perspi- 
cuity, as  well  as  energy,  which  the  ablest  interpre- 
ters find  it  difficult  to  convey  into  their  versions. 
The  Evangelist  John  says  of  our  Lord  ^^^  us  ra 
tdia  TjX&s,  xat  'ol  iSiol  avzov  ov  nageXa^ov.  I  have 
expressed  the  sentiment,  but  not  so  forcibly,  in 
this  manner :  He  came  to  his  own  i^wd,  and  his 
oivn  people  did  not  receive  him  ^^^.  On  the  princi- 
ples on  which  the  English  translation  is  conduct- 
ed, the  words  land  and  people  ought  to  be  visibly 
distinguished,  as  having  no  corresponding  names 
in  the  original.  That  the  old  interpreters  would 
have  judged  so,  we  may  fairly  conclude  from  their 
not  admitting  them,  or  any  thing  equivalent,  into 
their  version.  Yet,  that  their  version  is,  on  this 
account,  less  explicit  than  the  original,  cannot  be 
doubted  by  those    that   understand   Greek,   who 

124  John,  i.  11. 
12^  The  verse  was  so  rendered  in  the  former  edition.  In 
this  I  have  preferred,  He  came  to  his  own  home,  and  his  own 
family  did  not  receive  him.  By  the  same  rule  the  words  home 
and  family  should  be  distinguished  here,  as  land  and  people  la 
the  other  case. 

VOL.  II.  -57 


^ 


454  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xh. 

must  be  sensible  that,  by  the  bare  change  of  gen- 
der in  the  pronoun,  the  purport  of  those  names  is 
conveyed  with  the  greatest  clearness.  See  the 
note  on  that  passage  in  the  Gospel. 


§  9.  Our  translators  have  not,  however,  ob- 
served uniformly  their  manner  of  distinguishing 
by  the  aid  of  Italics.  Indeed,  if  they  had,  their 
w^ork  must  have  made  a  very  motley  appearance. 
On  many  occasions,  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  name 
requires  more  than  one  word  in  our  language  to 
express  a  meaning  which  it  often  bears,  and  which 
alone  suits  the  context.  There  was  no  reason,  in 
rendering  yXaaaa  ^^^  to  put  unknown  in  Italics, 
before  the  word  tongue,  a  strange  or  unknown 
tongue  being  one  very  common  signification  of 
the  word,  jn  the  best  authors.  JJvivfiaTa  ^^^  is 
very  properly  rendered  spiritual  gifts ;  it  means 
no  less,  in  the  Apostle  Paul's  language  ;  but  there 
was  no  propriety  in  distinguishing  the  word  gifts 
by  the  Italic  letter:  for  nvEvfiaTa,  a  substantive, 
can  in  no  instance,  be  rendered  barely  by  the  ad- 
jective spiritual.  Sometimes,  the  word  in  Italics 
is  a  mere  intruder,  to  which  there  is  not  any  thing 
in  the  import  of  the  original,  any  more  than  in 
the  expression,  either  explicitly,  or  implicitly, 
corresponding ;  the  sense,  which  in  effect  it  alters, 
being  both  clear  and  complete  without  it.  For 
an  example  of  this,  I  shall  recur  to  a  passage  on 

126  1  Cor.  xiv.  2.  »27  1  Cor.  xiv.  12. 


r.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  455 

which  I  had  occasion  formerly  to  remark  ^^®,  "  The 
"  just  shall  live  by  faith ;  but  if  any  man  draw 
"  back" — where  any  man  is  foisted  into  the  text, 
in  violation  of  the  rules  of  interpreting,  which 
compel  us  to  admit  the  third  personal  pronoun  he^ 
as  clearly,  though  virtually,  expressed  by  the  verb. 
I  do  not  remember  such  another  instance,  in  the 
English  translation,  though  I  had  occasion  to  ob- 
serve something  still  more  flagrant,  in  the  ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament  by  Junius  and  Tremel- 
lius  ''\ 

§  10.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that 
the  insertion  of  a  word,  or  of  a  few  words,  is  some- 
times necessar}^,  or  at  least  convenient,  for  giving 
a  sufficiency  of  light  to  a  sentence.  For  let  it  be 
observed,  that  this  is  not  attempting  to  give  more 
perspicuity  to  the  sacred  writings,  in  the  transla- 
tion, than  was  given  them,  by  the  inspired  pen- 
men, in  the  original.  The  contemporaries,  par- 
ticularly Hellenist  Jews,  readers  of  the  original, 
had  many  advantages  which,  with  all  our  assis- 
tances, we  cannot  attain.  Incidental  allusions  to 
rites,  customs,  facts,  at  that  time,  recent  and  well 
known,  now  little  known,  and  known  only  to  a 
few,  render  some  such  expedient  extremely 
proper.  There  are  many  things  which  it  would 
have  been  superfluous  in  them  to  mention,  which 
it  may,  nevertheless,  be  necessary  for  us  to  sug- 
gest. The  use  of  this  expedient  has  accordingly 
never  been  considered  as  beyond  the  legitimate 

128  Dis€.  X.  Part  V.  §  10.  129  Diss.  X.  Part  V.  §  4. 


456  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

province  of  the  translator.  It  is  a  libertj',  indeed, 
which  ought  to  be  taken  with  discretion,  and  nev- 
er, but  when  the  tiuth  of  what  is  supplied,  and  its 
appositeness,  are  both  unquestionable.  When  I 
recur  to  this  method,  which  is  but  seldom,  I  dis- 
tinguish the  words  inserted  by  inclosing  them  in 
crotchets,  having  reserved  the  Italic  character  for 
a  purpose  now  to  be  explained. 

§  11.  In  such  a  work  as  the  Gospel,  which, 
though  of  the  nature  of  history,  is  a  history  rather 
of  teaching  than  of  acting,  and,  in  respect  of  the 
room  occupied,  consists  in  the  relation  of  what 
w^as  said  more  than  what  was  done ;  I  thought 
it  of  consequence  to  distinguish  the  narrative 
part  which  comes  directly  from  the  Evangelist, 
from  the  interlocutory  part  (if  I  may  use  the  ex- 
pression,) or  whatever  was  spoken  either  by  our 
Lord  himself,  or  by  any  of  the  persons  introduced 
into  the  work.  To  the  former  I  have  assigned 
the  Italic,  to  the  latter  the  Roman  character. 
Though  the  latter  branch  in  this  distribution 
much  exceeds  in  quantity  the  other,  it  is  but  a 
very  inconsiderable  part  of  that  branch  which  is 
furnished  by  all  the  speakers  in  the  history, 
Jesus  alone  excepted.  Pretty  long  discourses, 
which  run  through  whole  successive  chapters,  are 
recorded  as  delivered  by  him,  without  any  inter- 
ruption. 

§  12.  Now,  my  reasons  for  adopting  this  method 
are  the  two  following :  First,  I  was  inclinable  to 


p.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  457 

render  it   evident   to   every   reader,   at  a   single 
glance,  how  small  a  share  of  the  whole  the  sacred 
penmen  took  upon  themselves.     It  is  little,  very 
little,  which  they  say,  as  from  themselves,  except 
what  is  necessary  for  connecting  the  parts,  and 
for  acquainting  us  with  the  most  important  facts. 
Another  reason  for  my  taking  this  method  was, 
because,  in  a  few  instances,  a  reader,  through  not 
adverting  closely,   (and    what  reader    is    always 
secure  against  such  inadvertency  ?)  may  not  suffi- 
ciently distinguish  what  is  said  by  the  historian, 
from  what  is  spoken  by  our  Lord  himself,  or  even 
by  any  of  the   other  speakers,  in  a  conversation 
reported  of  them.     But  it  may  be  objected, '  May 
*  not  this  method  sometimes,  in  dubious  cases,  con- 
'  fine  the  interpretation  in  such  a  way  as  to  affect 
'  the  sense  ?'     I  acknowledge  that  this  is  possible  ; 
but  it  does  not  at  present  occur  to  my  recollection, 
that  there  are  cases  in  these  histories,  wherein 
any  material  change  would  be  produced  upon  the 
sense,  in  whichsoever  of  the  two  ways  the  words 
were   understood.      In  most  cases  it  is    evident, 
with  a  small   degree  of  attention,  what  are  the 
words  of  the  Evangelist  the  relater,  and  what  are 
the  words  of  the  persons  whose  conversations  he 
relates. 

§  13.  The  principal  use  of  the  distinction  here 
made  is  to  quicken  attention,  or  rather  to  supply  a 
too  common  deficiency,  which  most  readers  are 
apt  at  intervals  to  experience,  in  attending.  And 
even,  at  the  worst,  it  does  not  limit  the  sense  of 
the  original  in  one  instance,  out  of  twenty  wherein 


453  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

it  is  limited  by  the  pointing,  which  is  now  univer- 
sally admitted  by  critics  to  have  been  in  later 
times  superadded.  Indeed,  there  can  be  no  trans- 
lation of  any  kind  (for  in  translating  there  is  al- 
ways a  choice  of  one  out  of  several  meanings,  of 
which  a  word  is  susceptible)  without  such  limita- 
tions of  the  sense.  Yet  the  advantages  of  pointing 
and  translating  are  too  considerable  to  be  given 
up,  on  account  of  an  inconvenience  more  apparent 
than  real. 

§  14.  All  that  is  necessary  in  an  interpreter, 
when  the  case  is  doubtful,  is  to  remark  in  the  notes 
the  different  ways  in  which  the  passage  may  be 
understood,  after  having  placed  in  the  text  that 
which  appears  to  him  the  most  probable.  In  like 
manner,  in  the  case  under  consideration,  wherever 
there  is  the  least  scope  for  doubting,  whether  the 
words  be  those  of  the  Evangelist,  or  those  of  any 
of  the  speakers  introduced  into  the  history,  I  as- 
sign to  the  passage  in  this  version,  the  character 
which,  to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  suits  it,  giving 
in  the  notes  the  reasons  of  my  preference,  togeth- 
er with  what  may  be  urged  for  viewing  it  differ- 
ently. It  is,  in  effect,  the  same  rule  which  I 
follow  in  the  case  of  various  readings,  and  of 
words  clearly  susceptible  of  different  interpreta- 
tions ;  also,  when  an  alteration  in  the  pointing 
would  yield  a  different  sense. 

§  15.  It  is  proper  to  add  a  few  things  on  the 
use  I  have  made  of  the  margin.  And  first  of  the 
side-margin.    One  use  has  been  already  mentioned, 


p.  ,v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  459 

to  wit,  for  marking  the  chapters  and  verses  of  the 
common  division.     Beside  these,  and  a  little  fur- 
ther from  the  text,  I  have   noted,  in  the   outer 
margin,  the  parallel  places  in  the  other  Gospels, 
the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  quoted  or  al- 
luded to,  and  also  the  places  in  Scripture,  and 
those  in  the  apocryphal  writings,  where  the  same 
sentiment  occurs,  or  the  like  incident  is  related- 
In  this  manner,  I  have   endeavoured  to  avoid  the 
opposite  extremes  into  which  editors  have  fallen, 
either  of  crowding  the  margin  with  references  to 
places  whose  only  resemblance  was   in  the  use  of 
a   similar   phrase    or    identical  expression,   or  of 
overlooking   th(5se   passages   wherein   there   is  a 
material  coincidence  in  the  thought.     To  prevent, 
as  much  as  possible,  the   confusion  arising  from 
too  many  references,  and  figures  in  the  margin, 
'  and,  at   the   same  time,  to  omit  nothing    useful, 
I  have,  at  the  beginning  of  every  paragraph,  re- 
ferred first  to  the  parallel  places,  when  there  are 
such  places,  in  the  other  Gospels.     As  generally 
the  resemblance  or  coincidence  affects  more  than 
one    verse,    nay,   sometimes,    runs    through   the 
whole  of  a  paragraph ;  I  have  made  the  reference 
to  the  first   verse   of  the   corresponding  passage 
serve  for  a  reference  to  the  whole ;  and,  in  order 
to  distinguish   such  a  reference  from  that  to  a  sin- 
gle verse  or  sentence,  I  have  marked  the  former 
by  a  point  at  the  upper  corner  of  the  figure,  the 
latter  by  a  point  at  the  lower  corner,  as  is  usual 
at  the  end  of  a  sentence.      I  have  adopted  the 
same  method  in  references  to  the  Old  Testament, 


460  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

to  mark  the  difference  between  those  where  only 
one  verse  is  quoted  or  alhided  to,  and  those  where- 
in the  allusion  is  to  two  or  more  in  succession. — 
These  are  the  only  purposes  to  which  I  have  ap- 
propriated the  side-margin. 

To  give  there  a  literal  version  of  the  peculiari- 
ties of  idiom,  whether  Hebraisms  or  Grecisms,  of 
tjie  original,  and  all  the  possible  ways  in  which 
tie  words  may  otherwise  be  rendered,  has  never 
appeared  to  me  an  object  deserving  a  tenth  part 
o:  the  attention  and  time,  which  it  requires  from  a 
translator.  To  the  learned  such  information  is  of 
no  significancy.  To  those  who  are  just  beginning 
the  study  of  the  language,  it  may  indeed  give  a 
little  assistance.  To  those  w^ho  understand  only 
the  language  of  the  translation,  it  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, rather  prejudicial  than  useful,  suggesting 
doubts  which  readers  of  this  stamp  are  not  quali- 
fied for  solving,  and  which  often  a  little  knowledge 
in  philology  would  entirely  dissipate.  All  that  is 
requisite  is,  where  there  is  a  real  ambiguity  in  the 
text,  to  consider  it  in  the  notes.  As  therefore  the 
only  valuable  purpose  that  such  marginal  informa- 
tion can  answer,  is  to  beginners  in  the  study  of 
the  sacred  languages,  and  as  that  purpose  so  little 
coincides  mth  the  design  of  a  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  into  the  vulgar  tongue,  I  could  not  dis- 
cover the  smallest  propriety  in  giving  it  a  place  in 
this  work. 

§  16.  The  foot-margin  I  have  reserved  for  dif- 
ferent purposes ;  first,  for  the  explanation  of  such 
appellatives,  as  do  not  admit  a  proper  translation 


r.  IV.]  DISSERTATIONS.  461 

into  our  language,  and  as,  b}^  consequence,  render 
it  necessary  for  the  translator  to  retain  the  original 
term.  This  I  did  not  consider  as  a  proper  subject 
for  the  notes,  which  are  reserved  chiefly  for  what 
requires  criticism  and  argument;  whereas  all  the 
explanations  requisite  in  the  margin,  are  common- 
ly such  as  do  not  admit  a  question  among  the 
learned.  Brief  explanations,  such  as  those  here 
meant,  may  be  justly  considered  as  essential  to 
every  translation  into  which  there  is  a  necessity  of 
introducing  foreign  words.  The  terms  which  re- 
quire such  explanations,  to  wit,  the  names  of  pe- 
culiar offices,  sects,  festivals,  ceremonies,  coins, 
measures,  and  the  like,  were  considered  former- 
ly 130  Qf  certain  terms,  however,  which  come 
under  some  of  these  denominations,  I  have  not 
judged  it  necessar}^  to  give  any  marginal  explana- 
tion. The  reason  is,  as  they  frequently  occur  in 
the  sacred  books,  what  is  mentioned  there  con- 
cerning them  sufficiently  explains  the  import  of 
the  words.  The  distinction  of  Pharisee  and  Sad- 
ducee,  we  learn  chiefly  from  the  Gospel  itself;  and 
in  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  made  acquainted 
with  the  sabbath,  circumcision,  and  passover. 

Those  things  which  stand  most  in  need  of  a 
marginal  explanation,  are  offices,  coins,  measures, 
and  such  peculiarities  in  dress  as  their  phylac- 
teries and  tufts  of  tassels  at  the  corners  of  their 
mantles.  In  like  manner  their  division  of  time, 
even  when  it  does  not  occasion  the  introduction  of 

*30  Diss.  VIII. 

VOL.  n.  58 


462  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

exotic  terms,  is  apt  to  mislead  the  unlearned,  as  it 
differs  widely  from  the  division  which  obtains  with 
us.  Thus  we  should  not  readily  take  the  third 
hour  of  the  day  to  mean  nine  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing, or  the  sixth  hour  to  mean  noon.  Further, 
when  to  Hebrew  or  Syriac  expressions  an  expla- 
nation is  subjoined  in  the  text,  as  is  done  to  the 
words,  Talitha  cumi,  Immanuel,  Ephphatha,  and  to 
our  Lord's  exclamation  on  the  cross,  there  is  no 
occasion  for  the  aid  of  the  margin.  When  no  ex- 
planation is  given  in  the  text,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
word  Hoscmna,  I  have  supplied  it  on  the  margin. 
Of  the  etymological  signification  of  proper  names, 
I  have  given  an  account,  only  when  there  is  in  the 
text  an  allusion  to  their  etymology,  in  which  case 
to  know  the  primitive  import  of  the  term  is  neces- 
sary, for  understanding  the  allusion. 

§  17.  There  is  only  one  other  use  to  which  I 
have  applied  the  foot-margin.  The  Greek  word 
xvgios  was  employed  by  the  Seventy,  not  only  for 
rendering  the  Hebrew  word  adoji,  that  is,  lord  or 
master,  but  also  to  supply  the  wprd  Jehovah, 
which  w^as  used  by  the  Jews  as  the  proper  name 
of  God,  but  W'hich  a  species  of  superstition  that, 
by  degrees,  came  generally  to  prevail  among 
them,  hindered  them  from  transplanting  into  the 
Greek  language.  As  the  name  Jehovah,  therefore, 
was  peculiarly  appropriated  to  God ;  and,  as  the 
Hebrew  adon,  and  the  Greek  kyrios,~\ike  the 
Latin  domimis,  and  the  English  lord,  are  merely 
appellatives,  and  used  promiscuously  of  God,  an- 
gels, and  men,  I  thought  it  not  improper,  when  a 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  463 

passage  in  the  New  Testament  is  quoted  or  intro- 
duced from  the  Old,  wherein  the  word  rendered 
in  Greek  ktjrios,  is  in  Hebrew,  Jehovah,  to  mark 
this  name  in  the  margin.  At  the  same  time  let  it 
be  observed,  that  I  have  made  no  difference  in  the 
text  of  the  version,  inasmuch  as  no  difference  is 
made  on  the  text  of  the  Evangelists  my  original, 
but  have  used  the  Common  English  name  Lord 
in  addressing  God,  where  they  have  employed  the 
common  Greek  name  kyrios. 


PAUT  V. 


THE   NOTES. 


I  SHALL  now  conclude  with  laying  a  few  things 
before  the  reader,  for  opening  more  fully  my  de- 
sign in  the  notes  subjoined  to  this  version.  I 
have  in  the  title  denominated  them  critical  and 
explanatory  :  exphmatory,  to  point  out  the  princi- 
pal intention  of  them,  which  is  to  throw  light  upon 
the  text,  where  it  seems  needful  for  the  discovery 
of  the  direct  and  grammatical  meaning ;  critical, 
to  denote  the  means  principally  employed  for  this 
purpose,  to  wit,  the  rules  of  criticism  on  manu- 
scripts and  versions,  in  what  concerns  language, 
style,  and  idiom.     I  have  called  them  notes  rather 


464  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

than  annotations,  to  suggest  that,  as  much  as  pos- 
sible, I  have  studied  brevity,  and  avoided  expa- 
tiating on  any  topic.  For  this  reason,  when  the 
import  of  the  text  is  so  evident  as  to  need  no  il- 
lustration, I  have  purposely  avoided  diverting  the 
reader's  attention,  by  an  unnecessary  display  of 
quotations  from  ancient  authors,  sacred  or  profane. 
As  I  would  withhold  nothing  of  real  utility,  I  re- 
cur to  classical  authority,  when  it  appears  neces- 
sary, but  not  when  a  recourse  to  it  might  be 
charged  with  ostentation.  A  commentary  was 
not  intended,  and  therefore,  any  thing  like  a  con- 
tinued explanation  of  the  text  is  not  to  be  expect- 
ed. The  criticisms  and  remarks  here  offered  are 
properly  scholia,  or  glosses  on  passages  of  doubt- 
ful, or  difficult,  interpretation  ;  and  not  comments. 
The  author  is  to  be  considered  as,  merel}^,  a  scholi- 
ast, not  a  commentator.  Thus  much  may  suffice, 
as  to  the  general  design.  In  regard  to  some 
things,  it  will  be  proper  to  be  more  particular. 

§  2.  From  the  short  account  of  my  plan  here 
given,  it  may  naturally  and  justly  be  inferred,  that 
I  have  shunned  entirely  the  discussion  of  abstract 
theological  questions,  which  have  affi)rded  inex- 
haustible matter  of  contention,  not  in  the  schools 
only,  but  in  the  church,  and  have  been  the  princi- 
pal subject  of  many  commentaries  of  great  name. 
To  avoid  controversy  of  every  kind  is,  I  acknowl- 
edge, not  to  be  attempted  by  one  who.  In  his  re- 
marks on  Scripture,  often  finds  himself  obliged  to 
support  controverted  interpretations  of  passages, 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  465 

concerning  the  sense  of  which  there  are  various 
opinions.  But  questions  of  this  kind,  though 
sometimes  related  to,  are  hardly  ever  coincident 
with,  the  speculative  points  of  polemic  theology. 
The  latter  are  but  deduced,  and-  for  the  most  part 
indirectly,  from  the  former.  Even  controvertists 
have  sometimes  the  candour  (though  a  class  of 
men  not  remarkable  for  candour)  to  admit  the 
justness  of  a  grammatical  interpretation  which 
appears  to  favour  an  antagonist ;  no  doubt  believ- 
ing, that  the  deduction,  made  by  him  from  the 
text,  may  be  eluded  otherwise  than  by  a  differ- 
ent version. — But  my  reasons,  for  keeping  as  clear 
as  possible  of  all  scholastic  disputes,  are  the  fol- 
lowing : 

§  3.  First,  if,  in  such  a  work  as  this,  a  man 
were  disposed  to  admit  them,  it  is  impossible  to 
say  how  far  they  would,  or  should,  carry  him. 
The  different  questions  which  have  been  agitated, 
have  all;  as  parts  of  the  same  system,  some  con- 
nection, natural  or  artificial,  among  themselves. 
The  explanation  and  defence  of  one  draws  in, 
almost  necessarily,  the  explanation  and  defence  of 
another  on  which  it  depends.  Besides,  those  con- 
versant in  systematic  divinity,  scarcely  read  a 
verse  in  the  Gospel,  which  they  do  not  imagine 
capable  of  being  employed  plausibly,  or  which, 
perhaps,  they  have  not  seen  or  heard  employed, 
either  in  defending,  or  in  attacking  some  of  their 
dogmas.  Whichsoever  of  these  be  the  case,  'je 
staunch  polemic  finds  himself  equally  obhged,  for 


466  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

what  he  reckons  the  cause  of  truth,  to  discuss  the 
controversy.  I  know  no  way  so  proper  for  escap- 
ing such  endless  embarrassments,  as  to  make  it  a 
rule  to  admit  no  questions  but  those  which  serve 
to  evince  either  the  authentic  reading,  or  the  just 
rendering,  of  the  text. 

§  4.  My  second  reason  is,  I  have  not  known 
any  interpreter,  who  has  meddled  with  controver- 
sy, whose  translation  is  not  very  sensibly  injured 
by  it.  Disputation  is  a  species  of  combat ;  the 
desire  of  victory  is  natural  to  combatants,  and  is 
commonly,  the  further  they  engage,  found  to  be- 
come the  more  ardent.  The  fairness  and  impar- 
tiality of  a  professed  disputant,  who  being,  at  the 
same  time,  a  translator,  has,  in  the  latter  capacity, 
the  moulding  of  the  arguments  to  which,  in  the 
former,  he  must  recur,  will  not  be  deemed,  in  the 
office  of  translating,  greatly  to  be  depended  on. 
A  man,  however  honest  in  his  intentions,  ought 
not  to  trust  himself  in  such  a  case.  Under  so 
powerful  a  temptation,  it  is  often  impossible  to 
preserve  the  judgment  unbiassed,  though  the  will 
should  remain  uncorrupted.  And  I  am  strongly 
inclined  to  think  that,  if  Beza  had  not  accom- 
panied his  translation  with  his  controversial  com- 
mentary, he  would  not  have  been  capable  of  such 
flagrant  wresting  of  the  words,  and  perversion  of 
the  sense,  of  his  author,  as  he  is  sometimes  justly 
chargeable  with.  But,  in  rendering  a  passage  in 
the  version,  to  be  presently  converted  into  an  ar- 
gument in  the  annotations,  it  was  not  easy  for  a 
translator    of    so   great   ardour,   to   refrain    from 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  467 

giving  it  the  turn  that  would  best  suit  the  purpose, 
of  which,  as  annotator,  he  never  lost  sight,  and 
for  which,  both  version,  and  commentary,  seem  to 
have  been  undertaken,  the  defence  of  the  theol- 
ogy of  his  party. 

§  5.  My  third  reason  for  declining  all  such 
disputes  is,  because  the  much  greater  part  of 
them,  even  those  which  are  treated  by  the  disput- 
ants, on  both  sides,  as  very  important,  have  long 
appeared  to  me,  in  no  other  light,  than  that  of  the 
foolish  questions  which  the  Apostle  warns  Titus 
to  avoid  ^^\  as  unprofitable  and  vain  ;  or  of  the 
profane  babbhngs  and  oppositions  of  science, 
falsely  so  called,  against  which  he  repeatedly 
cautioned  Timothy  ^^^  If  we  may  judge  of  them 
by  their  effects,  as  of  the  tree  by  its  fruits,  we 
shall  certainly  be  led  to  this  conclusion.  For, 
from  the  marks  which  the  Apostle  has  given  of 
the  logomachies,  or  strifes  of  words,  then  begin- 
ning to  prevail,  we  have  the  utmost  reason  to 
conclude,  that  a  great  proportion  of  our  scholastic 
disputes  come  under  the  same  denomination. 
What  character  has  he  given  of  the  vain  janglings 
of  his  day,  which  is  wanting  in  those  of  ours  } 
Do  not  the  latter  gender  contention  as  success- 
fully as  ever  the  former  did?  Cannot  we  say, 
with  as  much  truth  of  these,  as  Paul  did  of  those, 
whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  revilings,  evil  surmis' 
ings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds? 
Do  our  babblings,  any  more  than  theirs,  minister 

131  Tit.  iii.  9.  isj  j  xim.  i.  4.     vi.  20.     2  Tim.  ii.  23. 


468  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xn. 

godly  edifying  ?  Do  they  not,  on  the  contrary, 
with  equal  speed,  when  they  are  encouraged,  in- 
crease unto  more  ungodliness  ?  Have  our  polemic 
divines,  by  their  abstruse  researches  and  meta- 
physical refinements,  contributed  to  the  advance- 
ment of  charity,  love  to  God,  and  love  to  man  ? 
Yet  this  is,  in  religion,  the  great  end  of  all ;  for 
charity  is  the  end  of  the  commandment,  and  the 
bond  of  perfectness.  These  questions  I  leave 
with  every  considerate  reader.  The  proper  an- 
swers will,  with  the  aid  of  a  little  experience  and 
reflection,  be  so  quickly  suggested  to  him,  that  he 
will  need  no  prompter. 

§  6.  Lastly,  Though  I  am  far  from  putting  all 
questions  in  theology  on  a  level,  the  province  of 
the  translator,  and  that  of  the  controvertist  are  so 
distinct,  and  the  talents  requisite  in  the  one,  so 
different  from  those  requisite  in  the  other,  that  it 
appears  much  better  to  keep  them  separate.  I 
have,  therefore,  in  this  work,  confined  myself  en- 
tirely to  the  former. 

§  7.  Further,  I  do  not  attempt,  in  the  notes, 
to  remove  every  kind  of  textuary  difficulty  in  the 
books  here  translated  ;  such,  for  example,  as  arise 
from  apparent  contradictions  in  the  accounts  of 
the  different  Evangelists,  or  from  the  supposed 
contradiction  of  contemporary  authors,  or  such  as 
are  merely  chronological  or  geographical.  Not 
that  I  consider  these,  like  the  dogmas  of  the  con- 
trovertist, as  without  the  sphere  of  a  critic  on  the 


r.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  469 

sacred  text ;  not  that  I  make  it,  as  in  the  former 
case,  a  rule  to  exclude   them,  if  any  thing  new 
and  satisfactory  should  occur  to  me  to   offer :  but 
because,  on  most  questions  of  this  nature,  all  the 
methods  of  solution,  known  to  nre,  are  either  trite 
or   unsatisfactory.      Much   has   been   written  for 
solving   the    difficulty   arising   from  the   different 
accounts  gfven  of  our  Lord's  genealogy  by  Mat- 
thew and  Luke ;  and  different  hypotheses  have 
been  framed  for  this  purpose.     Though  I  do  not 
pretend  to  have  reached  certainty  on  this  ques- 
tion, I  incline   most  to  the  opinion  of  those  who 
piake  the  one  account  the  pedigree  of  Joseph,  the 
other  that  of  Mary.     But  having  nothing  to  advance 
which  has  not  been  already  said  over  and  over  by 
others,  and  the  evidence  not  being  such  as  to  put 
the  matter  beyond  doubt ;  I  see  no  occasion  for  a 
note,  barely  to  tell   my   opinion,  which  is  entitled 
to  no  regard  from  the  reader,  unless  so  far  as  it  is 
supported  by  evidence. 

For  similar  reasons,  I  have  avoided  entering 
upon  the  examination  of  the  difficulties  occasion- 
ed by  the  different  accounts  given  of  our  Lord's 
resurrection,  and  his  appearances  to  his  disciples 
after  it.  On  some  of  these  points  there  is  a  dan- 
ger lest  an  interpreter  be  too  hasty  in  deciding.  A 
judgment  rashly  formed  may  give  his  mind  such  a 
bias  as  shall  affect  his  translation,  and  lead  him  to 
make  stretches  in  support  of  his  opinion,  which 
the  laws  of  criticism  do  not  warrant.  I  acknow- 
ledge, on  the  other  hand,  that  there  are  instances 
wherein  a  small  variation,  very  defensible  in  the 

TOL.    II.  59 


470  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

pointing,  or  in  rendering  a  particular  expression, 
may  totally  remove  a  difficulty  or  apparent  contra- 
diction. In  such  a  case,  it  would  be  both  uncan- 
did  and  injudicious,  not  to  give  that,  of  all  the  in- 
terpretations whereof  the  words  are  susceptible, 
wh'Ci.  is  attended  with  the  least  difficulty;  and,  if 
the  interpretation  be  uncommon,  to  assign  the  rea- 
sons in  the  notes.  But,  to  do  violence  to  the  rules 
of  construction,  and  distort  the  words,  for  the  sake 
of  producing  the  solution  of  a  difficulty,  is,  in  ef- 
fect, to  substitute  our  own  conjectures  for  the 
word  of  God,  and  thus  to  put  off  human  conceit 
for  celestial  verity.  It  is  far  better  to  leave  the 
matter  as  we  found  it.  In  solving  difficulties  to 
which  w^e  find  ourselves  unequal,  future  expositors 
may  be  more  successful. 

§  8.  One  great  fault,  far  too  common  with 
scriptural  critics,  is,  that  they  would  be  thought 
to  know  every  thing :  and  they  are  but  too  prone 
to  think  so  concerning  themselves.  This  tends  to 
retard  (instead  of  accelerating)  their  progress  in 
true  knowledge.  Men  are  unwilling  to  part  with 
what  they  fancy  they  have  gotten  a  sure  hold  of, 
or  it)  be  easily  stript  of  what  has  cost  them  time 
and  painful  study  to  acquire.  Custom  soon  sup- 
plies the  place  of  argument ;  and  what  at  first 
may  have  appeared  to  be  reason,  settles  into  pre- 
judice. It  is  necessary,  in  our  present  state,  that 
habit  should  have  influence  even  on  our  opinions. 
But  it  is  particularly  fortunate  when  the  habit,  in 
matters  of  judgment,  extends  not  barely  to  the 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  471 

conclusions,  but  to  the  premises  ;  not  to  the  opin- 
ions only,  but  to  the  reasons  on  which  we  have 
founded  them.  When  this  is  the  case,  we  expe- 
rience all  the  advantages  derived  from  an  habitual 
association,  without  much  danger  of  bigotry,  or 
blind  attachment.  Now  it  is  well  known,  that 
opinions  hastily  for;ned,  preclude  all  the  advan- 
tage which  may  afterwards  redound  from  better 
information.  The  truth  of  this  remark  is,  even  in 
the  ordinary  affairs  of  life,  too  well  seen  and  felt, 
in  its  unhappy  consequences,  every  day. 

§  9.  Again,  I  have,  in  these  notes,  avoided  med- 
dling with  questions  relating  to  the  order  in  which 
the  different  miracles  were  performed,  and  the 
discourses  spoken,  and  also  settling  the  doubts 
which  have  been  raised  concerning  the  identity  or 
diversity  of  some  of  the  facts  and  speeches  record- 
ed by  the  different  Evangelists.  I  have  shunned, 
in  like  manner,  all  inquiry  about  the  time  occu- 
pied by  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  about  several 
other  historical  questions  which  have  been  much 
canvassed.  I  do  not  say  that  such  inquiries  are 
useless.  A  connection  with  the  evidence  of  other 
points,  which  may  be  of  great  importance,  may 
confer  on  some  of  them  a  consequence,  much  be- 
yond, what,  at  first,  we  sliould  be  apt  to  imagine. 
But,  in  general,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that, 
though  I  have  occasionally  attended  to  such  inqui- 
ries, I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  that  their 
consequence  is  so  great  as  some  seem  to  make  it. 
They  are  still,  upon  the  whole,  rather  curious 
than  useful.     Besides,  on  the  greater  part  of  them, 


472  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xir. 

little   is  to  be  expected  beyond  uncertainty  and 
doubt. 

Some  people  have  so  strong  a  propensity  to 
form  fixed  opinions  on  every  subject  to  which 
they  turn  their  thoughts,  that  their  mind  will 
brook  no  delay.  They  cannot  bear  to  doubt  or 
hesitate.  Suspense  in  judging,  is  to  them  more 
insufferable,  than  the  manifest  hazard  of  judging 
wrong :  and,  therefore,  when  they  have  not  suffi- 
cient evidence,  they  will  form  an  opinion  from 
what  they  have,  be  it  ever  so  little ;  or  even  from 
their  own  conjectures,  without  any  evidence  at  all. 
Now,  to  believe  without  proper  evidence,  and  to 
doubt  when  we  have  evidence  sufficient,  are  equal- 
ly the  effects,  not  of  the  strength,  but  of  the  weak- 
ness, of  the  understanding.  In  questions,  therefore, 
which  have  appeared  to  me  either  unimportant,  or 
of  very  dubious  solution,  I  have  thought  it  better 
to  be  silent,  than  to  amuse  the  reader  with  those 
remarks  in  which  I  have  myself  found  no  satisfac- 
tion. In  a  very  few  cases,  however,  I  have,  in 
some  measure,  departed  from  this  rule ;  and,  in 
order  to  prevent  the  reader  from  being  misled  in  a 
matter  of  consequence,  by  explanations  more  spe- 
cious than  solid,  have  even  attempted  to  refute 
those  solutions  given  by  others  which  appeared  to 
pervert  the  sense,  though  I  had  nothing  satisfacto- 
ry of  my  own  to  substitute  in  their  place  ^^^.  Hav- 
ing said  thus  much  of  the  purposes  for  Mjiich  the 
notes  are  not,  it  is  proper  now,  to  mention  those 
for  which  they  are,  intended. 

133  See  the  note  on  Mark,  x.  30. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  473 

§  10.  First,  then,  as  was  hinted  before,  such 
different  readings  as  affect  the  sense,  and  are  tol- 
erably supported  by  manuscripts,  versions,  or 
their  own  intrinsic  evidence,  insomuch,  that  the 
judgments  of  the  learned  are  divided  concerning 
them,  are  commonly  given  in  the  notes :  their 
evidence  briefly  stated,  and  the  reason  assigned 
for  the  reading  adopted  in  the  translation.  In  this 
I  carefully  avoid  all  minuteness,  having  no  inten- 
tion to  usurp  the  province,  or  supersede  the  la- 
bours, of  those  who  have,  with  so  much  laudable 
care  and  diligence,  collected  those  variations,  and 
thereby  facilitated  the  work  of  other  critics.  In- 
deed, as  the  variations  are  comparatively  few, 
which  are  entitled  to  a  place  here ;  and  as,  in 
those  few,  I  do  not  enter  into  particulars,  but  only 
give  what  appears  the  result  of  the  evidence  on 
both  sides,  I  cannot  be  said,  in  any  respect,  to  in- 
terfere with  the  departments  of  such  critics  as 
Mill  and  Wetstein.  The  little  which  occurs  here 
ought,  on  the  contrary,  to  serve  as  a  spur  to  the 
learned  reader,  to  the  more  assiduous  study  of  this 
important  branch  of  sacred  literature.  In  like  man- 
ner, variations  of  consequence,  affecting  the  sense, 
in  versions  of  such  venerable  antiquity  as  the  Sy- 
riac  and  the  Vulgate,  though  not  accompanied 
with  correspondent  readings  in  any  Greek  copies, 
are  not  often  passed  over  unobserved.  In  all  du- 
bious cases,  I  give  my  reason  for  the  reading  pre- 
ferred in  this  translation,  whether  it  be  the  com- 
mon reading  or  notj   and,  after  mentioning   the 


474  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

other,  with  what  may  be  urged  in  its  favour,  leave 
the  reader  to  his  choice. 


§  11.  The  other,  and  the  principal  end  of  these 
notes,  is  to  assign  the  reasons  for  the  way  wherein 
the  words  or  sentences  of  the  original  are  render- 
ed in  this  translation.  As  it  would  have  been  im- 
proper, because  unnecessary,  to  give  a  reason  for 
the  manner  wherein  ever}'  word,  or  even  sentence, 
is  translated,  I  shall  here  mention  the  particular 
cases  in  which  it  has  been  judged  expedient  to 
offer  something  in  the  notes  in  vindication  of  the 
version.  The  first  is,  when  the  rendering  given 
to  the  words  does  not  coincide  in  meaning  with 
that  of  the  common  version.  Where  the  differ- 
ence is  manifestly  and  only  in  expression,  to  make 
remarks  must  generally  appear  superfluous ;  the 
matter  ought  to  be  left  to  the  taste  and  discern- 
ment of  the  reader.  To  attempt  a  defence,  of 
every  alteration  of  this  kind,  would  both  extend 
the  notes  to  an  unmeasurable  length,  and  render 
them,  for  the  most  part,  very  insignificant. 

But,  secondly,  there  are  a  few  instances  where- 
in all  the  difference  in  the  version  may,  in  fact,  be 
merely  verbal,  though  not  manifestly  so ;  and 
therefore  as,  to  the  generality  of  readers,  they  will 
at  first  appear  to  affect  the  sense,  it  may  be  of 
consequence  to  take  notice  of  them.  The  differ- 
ence between  sound  and  sense,  the  words:  and  the 
meaning,  though  clearly  founded  in  the  nature  of 
things,  is  not  always  so  obvious  as  we  should  im- 
agine. .  That,  in  language,  the  connection  between 
the  sign  and  the  thing  signified  is  merel}^  artificial, 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  4Y& 

cannot  admit  a  question.  Yet,  the  tendency  of 
the  mind,  when  much  habituated  to  particular 
sounds,  as  the  signs  of  certain  conceptions,  is  to 
put  both  on  the  footing  of  things  naturally  con- 
nected. In  consequence  of  this^  a  difference  only 
in  expression  may  appear  to  alter  the  sentiment, 
or,  at  least,  very  much  to  enervate  and  obscure  it. 
For  this  reason,  in  a  few  cases,  wherein  the 
change  made  on  the  place  is,  in  effect,  merely 
verbal,  I  have,  to  obviate  mistakes,  and  to  show 
that,  in  alterations  even  of  this  kind,  I  have  been 
determined  by  reasons  which  appear  to  me 
weighty,  attempted  a  brief  illustration  in  the 
notes.  ' 

Thirdly,  in   certain  cases,  wherein  there  is  no 
difference  between   the   common  translation   and 
the  present,  either  in  thought  or  in   expression, 
but  wherein   both   differ  from   that  of  other  re- 
spectable  interpreters,  or  wherein    the    common 
version  has  been  combated  by  learned  critics,  I 
have  assigned  my  reasons  for  concurring  with  the 
English  translators,  and  for  not  being  determined 
by  such   criticisms,  though  ingenious,  and  though 
supported  by  writers  of  character.     This   is  the 
more  necessary,  as  there  has  been,  of  late,  both 
abroad  and  at  home,  a  profusion  of  criticisms  on 
the  sacred  text ;    and   many   new  versions   have 
been  attempted,  especially  in  France  and  England. 
As   these  must  be  supposed  to  have  had  some 
influence  on  critical  readers,  it  would  have  been 
improper    to    overlook    entirely    their    remarks. 
Such,  therefore,  as  seem  to  be  of  moment,  and 
have  come  to  my  knowledge,  or  occurred  to  my 


476  PRELIMINARY        '  [d.  xii. 

memory,  I  have  occasionally  taken  notice  of. 
This  I  have  done,  with  a  view  sometimes  to  con- 
firm their  reasoning,  sometimes  to  confute  it,  or, 
at  least,  to  show  that  it  is  not  so  decisive  as  a  san- 
guine philologist  (for  even  philologists  are  some- 
times sanguine  in  deciding)  is  apt  to  imagine.  In 
this  article,  the  learned  reader  will  find  many 
omissions,  arising  partly  from  forgetfulness,  and 
partly  from  the  different  judgments  which  are  in- 
evitably formed,  by  different  persons,  concerning 
the  importance  of  particular  criticisms.  When 
the  decision  of  any  point  may  be  said  to  depend, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  on  what  has  been  discussed  in 
the  Preliminary  Dissertations,  I  always,  to  avoid 
repetitions,  refer  to  the  paragraph  or  paragraphs 
of  the  Dissertation,  where  such  a  discussion  is  to 
be  found. 

§  12.  Another  purpose  for  which  I  have  some- 
times employed  the  notes,  is  the  explanation  of:  a 
name  or  word  which,  though  from  scriptural  use  it 
be  familiar  to  our  ears,  has  little  currency  in  con- 
versation, because  rarely  or  never  applied  to  any 
common  subject.  Of  this  kind  are  the  words 
parable,  publican,  scribe,  of  which  I  have  attempt- 
ed an  explanation  in  the  notes :  add  to  these  all 
the  terms  which,  though  current  in  conversation, 
have  something  peculiar  in  their  scriptural  appli- 
cation. I  have  generally  avoided  employing 
words  in  meanings  which  they  never  bear^in  ordi- 
nary use.  As  it  is  from  the  prevailing  use  that 
words,  as  signs,  may  be  said  to  originate,  and  by  it 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  477 

that  their  import  is  ascertained,  such  peculiarities 
rarely  fail  to  create  some  obscurity.  There  are, 
nevertheless,  instances  in  all  languages,  in  which, 
on  certain  subjects  (for  religion  is  not  singular  in 
this,)  common  terms  have  something  peculiar  in 
their  application.  In  such  cases,  we  cannot  avoid 
the  peculiarity  of  meaning,  without  having  re- 
course to  circumlocution,  or  such  other  expedients 
as  would  injure  the  simplicity  of  the  expression, 
and  give  the  appearance  of  affectation  to  the  lan- 
guage. When,  therefore,  I  have  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  employ  such  words,  I  have  endeavoured 
to  ascertain  the  scriptural  acceptation  in  the 
notes  ;  or,  if  the  explanation  has  been  anticipat- 
ed in  these  Dissertations,  I  have  referred  to  the 
place.  Of  such  peculiarities,  which  are  far  from 
being  numerous  in  this  version,  the  following  will 
serve  as  examples. 

The  first  shall  be  the  word  Imvi/er,  which  I 
have,  after  the  old  translators,  retained  as  the  ver- 
sion of  vofiLxos  y  not  that  it  entirely  answers  in 
the  Gospel  to  the  English  use,  but  because  it 
has  what  I  may  call  an  analogical  propriety,  and 
bears  nearly  the  same  relation  to  their  word  vofzos, 
that  the  word  lawyer  bears  to  our  word  Imv.  The 
deviation  from  common  use  is,  at  most,  not  great- 
er than  that  of  the  words  patron  and  client,  in  the 
translation  of  any  Roman  historian.  vSome,  in- 
deed, have  chosen  to  render  vofiixos  scribe,  and 
others,  for  the  same  reason,  to  render  ygaiifxaTtvs 
lawyer,  because  in  one  instance,  a  person  called 
vofiixos  in  one  Gospel  ^^\  is  named  in  another  ^^^ 

134  Matth.  xxii.  35.  ^^^  Mark,  xii.  28. 

VOL.  n.  60 


478  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

ygafifiarevs.  But  this  argument  is  not  conclusive. 
Jonathan,  David'' s  uncle,  we  are  told^^^  tvas  a 
counsellor,  a  loise  man,  and  a  scribe.  Can  we  in- 
fer from  this,  that  these  are  synonymous  words  ? 
The  contrary,  I  think,  may  be  concluded  with 
much  greater  reason.  If  then,  Jonathan  had  been 
called  by  one  historian  barely  a  counsellor,  and  by 
another  barely  a  scribe,  it  would  not  have  been 
just  to  infer  that  counsellor  and  scribe,  though 
both,  in  this  instance,  applicable  to  the  same  per- 
son, are  w^ords  of  the  same  import.  Yet  the  ar- 
gument is  no  better  in  the  present  case.  That 
there  is,  however,  an  affinity  in  their  significations 
can  hardly  be  doubted,  as  both  belonged  to  the 
literary  profession,  which  was  not  very  extensive 
among  the  Jews.  But  that  they  are  not  entirely 
coincident,  may  be  inferred  from  a  passage  in 
Luke^^'^,  where  we  are  informed  that  our  Lord, 
after  severely  censuring  the  practices  of  the 
Scribes  ygafx^axsLs,  and  Pharisees,  is  addressed  in 
this  manner  by  one  of  the  vofiLxoi,  who  happened 
to  be  present.  Master,  thus  saying,  thou  reproach- 
esf  us  also.  That  the  reproach  extended  to  them 
he  infers  from  the  thing  said,  thus  saying,  but 
there  had  been  no  occasion  for  inference,  if  they 
had  been  addressed  by  their  common  appellation, 
and  if  scribe  and  lawyer  had  meant  the  same 
thing.  Neither,  in  that  case,  could  he  have  said 
us  also,  that  is,  us  as  Avell  as  those  whom  thou 
hast  named,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  Our 
Lord's  reply  makes  it,  if  possible,  still  more  evi- 

136  1  Chron.  xxvii.  32.  137  Luke,  xi.  45. 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  479 

dent,  that  though  what  he  had  said,  did  indeed 
comprehend  them,  the  title  which  he  had  used, 
did  not  necessarily  imply  so  much.  Wo  unto  you 
ALSO,  ye  lawyers,  KAI  TMIN  tois  vofUTcois  xat^^^ 
which  could  not  have  been  so.  expressed,  if  the 
denunciation  immediately  preceding,  had  been  ad- 
dressed to  them  by  name.  Others  think  vofiixos 
equivalent  to  vofio8i8a(jxaXos,  rendering  both  Doc- 
tor of  the  laic.  But  as  we  have  not  sufficient 
evidence  that  there  is  in  these  a  perfect  coinci- 
dence in  meaning,  and  as  they  are  differently  ren- 
dered in  the  Syriac  version,  it  is  better  to  preserve 
the  distinction  which  the  original  makes,  at  least 
in  the  names. 

Another  example  of  a  small  deviation  from 
familiar  language,  is  in  the  word  sinner,  ufiagza- 
Aos,  which,  in  common  use,  is  applicable  to  every 
rational  being  not  morally  perfect,  but  frequently 
in  Scripture  denotes  a  person  of  a  profligate  life. 
Now  as  the  frequency  of  this  application,  and  the 
nature  of  the  occurrences,  remove  all  doubt  as  to 
the  meaning,  it  may  be  considered  as  one  of  those 
Hebrew  idioms,  Avhich  it  is  proper  in  a  translator 
to  preserve.  Neither  desert  nor  wilderness  exact- 
ly corresponds  to  sgrfixos  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ^^^  ;  but  they  are  near  enough  to  answer  the 
purpose  better  than  a  periphrasis.  The  like  may 
be  said  of  neighbour,  which,  in  familiar  language, 
is  never  used  with  so  great  latitude  as  in  holy 
writ.  And  in  general,  when  words  in  scriptural 
use  are  accompanied  with  perspicuity,  they  ought 

138  Luke,  xi.  46.  -  i»9  Mark,  i.  3.  N. 


480  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xiu 

to  be  preferred  to  words  in  greater  currency, 
which  are  not  used  in  the  common  translation  ; 
and  that  even  though  the  import  of  these  more 
familiar  words  should  be  sufficiently  apposite.  It 
is  for  this  reason  alone,  that  in  relation  to  human 
characters,  we  should  reckon  it  more  suitable  to 
the  language  of  the  Spirit,  to  say  righteous  than 
yirtuous,  just  than  honest. 

§  13.  The  only  other  use  I  have  made  of  the 
notes,  and  that  but  seldom,  is  to  remark  passingly 
what  may  serve  either  to  illustrate  the  character 
of  the  style  of  those  writings,  or  to  display  the 
spirit  which  everywhere  animates  them :  for  in 
these  we  discover  the  intrinsic  evidences  they 
carry  of  a  divine  original.  This  has  induced  me, 
sometimes,  to  take  notice  also  of  the  moral  les- 
sons to  which  some  things  naturally  lead  the  at- 
tention of  the  serious  reader.  There  is  not,  on 
this  ground,  the  same  hazard,  as  on  the  specula- 
tive questions  of  school-divinity,  of  rousing  even 
among  Christians,  a  whole  host  of  opponents,  or 
stirring  up  unedifying  and  undeterminable  dis- 
putes. Practical  observations,  though  too  little 
minded,  are  hardly  ever  controverted.  Besides, 
they  are  not  of  that  kind  of  questions  which  gen- 
ders strife,  but  are  most  evidently  of  that  which 
ministers  godly  edifying.  On  this  article,  some 
will  think  that  I  have  been  too  sparing.  But,  in 
my  judgment,  it  is  only  in  very  particular  cases, 
that  the  introduction  of  such  hints  is  pertinent,  in 
a  scholiast.  When  the  scope  of  the  text  is  man- 
ifestly  practical,  it  is  enough  that  we  attend  to 


p.  v.]  DISSERTATIONS.  481 

the  sacred  authors.  To  enforce  what  they  say, 
by  obtruding  on  the  reader,  remarks  to  the  same 
purpose,  might  appear  a  superfluous,  or  even 
officious,  interruption.  The  effect  is  fully  as  bad 
when  the  observation,  however  good  in  itself, 
appears  far-fetched  :  for  the  best  things  do  not 
answer  out  of  place.  Perhaps  the  least  excep- 
tionable account  that  can  be  given  of  such  remarks 
as  are  at  once  pertinent,  and  efficacious,  is,  that 
they  arise  naturally,  though  not  obviously,  out  of 
the  subject. 

§  14.  To  conclude  ;  as  I  do  not  think  it  the 
best  way  of  giving  an  impartial  hearing  to  the 
sacred  authors,  to  interrupt  the  reading  of  them 
every  moment,  for  the  sake  of  consulting  either 
the  glosses,  or  the  annotations,  of  expositors,  I 
have  avoided  offering  any  temptation  to  this  prac- 
tice, having  placed  the  notes  at  the  end.  When 
a  portion  of  Scripture,  such  as  one  of  the  sections 
of  this  version,  is  intended  to  be  read,  it  is  better 
to  read  it  to  an  end  without  interruption.  The 
scope  of  the  whole  is  in  this  way  more  clearly 
perceived,  as  well  as  the  connection  of  the  parts. 
Whereas,  when  the  reader  finds  the  text  and  the 
notes  on  the  same  page,  and  under  his  eye  at 
once,  the  latter  tend,  too  evidently,  to  awake  his 
curiosity,  and,  before  he  has  proceeded  in  the  for- 
mer far  enough  to  have  a  distinct  view  of  the 
scope  of  the  passage,  to  call  off"  his  attention ;  but 
when  they  are  separated,  as  in  this  work,  it  may  be 
supposed,  that  a  reader  will  finish  at  least  a  para- 
graph, before  he  turn  over  to  a  distant  part  of  the 


482  PRELIMINARY  [d.  xii. 

book.  This  method  gives  this  advantage  even  to 
the  notes,  if  judicious,  that  as  the  argument  there 
used,  in  favour  of  a  particular  reading,  or  of  a 
particular  rendering,  of  a  sentence,  is  often  drawn 
from  the  scope  and  connection  of  the  place,  he 
will  be  better  qualified  to  judge  of  the  justness  of 
the  criticism.  It  ought  always  to  be  remembered 
that  an  acquaintance  with  the  text  is  the  principal 
object.  Recourse  to  the  notes  may  be  had  only 
occasionally,  as  a  man,  when  he  meets  with  some 
difficulty,  and  is  at  a  loss  how  to  determine,  recurs 
to  the  judgment  of  a  friend.  For  the  same  reason 
I  have  also  avoided  inserting  any  marks  in  the 
text  referring  to  them.  The  reference  is  suffi- 
ciently ascertained  in  the  notes  themselves,  by  the 
common  marks  of  chapter  and  verse. 


THE    END    OF    THE    PRELIMINARY    DISSERTATIONS. 


-^BS2555. C 187  1824  V.2  '. 

In  -The  four  Gospels :  translated  from  the 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 

IllllllllllllilllllHIIIIII 


1    1012  00048  5625 


:, '  '■><'-;>* ..».'vi  7*"^  mI^^M*/^ 


iL€Sl<